UK riots Google map

[NotLostJustWandering]

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=207192798388318292131.0004aa01af6748773e8f 7&msa=0&ll=51.558503%2C-0.055275&spn=0.114195%2C0.298691

[ukmale32]

Tonight, if continues, I hope the army cracks their heads, they are a f*cking disgrace.

[Gearbox]

All the hot pacifists are welcome to take refuge at my place btw!;)

What the Hell is going on there?

[Hephaestion]

All the hot pacifists are welcome to take refuge at my place btw!;)

What the Hell is going on there?

The story goes that a cab was halted by the police. The claim was that a shot was fired from within at a policeman. The man in the cab was shot dead. The policeman was taken to hospital. The bullet was reported to have lodged in his radio rather than penetrate his body.

A small protest march was held. The dead man's mother is not well versed in public speaking. The airwaves have been filled with questions about the man's background and the strong implication has been that he was 'a villain'.

On that very day the entrepreneurial spirit took over and the main driving force has since been to burgle, loot and destroy. Ill gotten gains have been openly traded. The demonstration has been that areas of deprivation are newly created more than they are inherited from the past.

The danger now is that Da Ali G catch phrase may well be seen as the definitive causality of all of the events by all parties.

.

[Hephaestion]

Announced on TV news that no shots were fired by the man in the cab. A gun was found 'at the scene' and whether or not it belonged to the man is 'still being investigated'. 2 shots fired both by a policeman, one 'missed' the other was fatal to the man.

One other man found shot in Croydon during the riot has since died.

[Gearbox]

I don't watch TV, so I get my info by word of mouth or the net. So thanks lovely man Hephaestion.:bowdown:

Hope all are safe there and the madness will fizzle out real soon.

[darkeyes]

My mum's family mostly live in Salford and Manchester and so far all are safe and well.... but talking to relatives there is a real air of tension in much of the greater Manchester area. So far things havent got out of hand as seriously as in London but its early yet. Fingies crossed.

I have friends who live in Tottenham and they have been scared out of their wits with the mayhem which has been created in the streets. Luckily their home was not damaged by houses just a few streets away were burned out.

Also I have friends in the Croydon area who so far are untouched by any violence.

I thank kismet for the safety of all those I care for and know and hope it is kind to everyone on site and off it who live in the areas concerned.

We went to a concert at the festival tonight and when we came out I looked round and noticed the calm and lack of fear in this old town I love more than any other place on this earth. This is a beautiful very wealthy city but it too has large areas which are as impoverished and deprived as any in London and anywhere south of the border. I shivered as I thought of such mayhem and appalling destruction happening here. There seems no reason to any of it and for once I am shocked almost into silence and have no ready opinionated answers to why. I am grappling with this and trying to understand just what is gained by any of it.

[Pasadenacpl2]

If you had the right to keep arms within your homes and businesses, this wouldn't have gotten so far. I dare any group of torch and pitchfork waving thugs to attack my home. A shotgun blast over their heads is more than enough to disavow them of any inclination to make a run for my front door. And if not? I have 4 shotguns and three sons all who are versed in their use. It only takes two shotguns to hold a siege off of a home.

Pasa

[NotLostJustWandering]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots?CMP=twt_gu

There is a context to London's riots that can't be ignored

Those condemning the events in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture

Since the coalition came to power just over a year ago, the country has seen multiple student protests, occupations of dozens of universities, several strikes, a half-a-million-strong trade union march and now unrest on the streets of the capital (preceded by clashes with Bristol police in Stokes Croft earlier in the year). Each of these events was sparked by a different cause, yet all take place against a backdrop of brutal cuts and enforced austerity measures. The government knows very well that it is taking a gamble, and that its policies run the risk of sparking mass unrest on a scale we haven't seen since the early 1980s. With people taking to the streets of Tottenham, Edmonton, Brixton and elsewhere over the past few nights, we could be about to see the government enter a sustained and serious losing streak.

The policies of the past year may have clarified the division between the entitled and the dispossessed in extreme terms, but the context for social unrest cuts much deeper. The fatal shooting of Mark Duggan last Thursday, where it appears, contrary to initial accounts, that only police bullets were fired, is another tragic event in a longer history of the Metropolitan police's treatment of ordinary Londoners, especially those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and the singling out of specific areas and individuals for monitoring, stop and search and daily harassment.

One journalist wrote that he was surprised how many people in Tottenham knew of and were critical of the IPCC, but there should be nothing surprising about this. When you look at the figures for deaths in police custody (at least 333 since 1998 and not a single conviction of any police officer for any of them), then the IPCC and the courts are seen by many, quite reasonably, to be protecting the police rather than the people.

Combine understandable suspicion of and resentment towards the police based on experience and memory with high poverty and large unemployment and the reasons why people are taking to the streets become clear. (Haringey, the borough that includes Tottenham, has the fourth highest level of child poverty in London and an unemployment rate of 8.8%, double the national average, with one vacancy for every 54 seeking work in the borough.)

Those condemning the events of the past couple of nights in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture: a country in which the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest, where consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy, and where, according to the OECD, social mobility is worse than any other developed country.

As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, phenomena usually described as "social problems" (crime, ill-health, imprisonment rates, mental illness) are far more common in unequal societies than ones with better economic distribution and less gap between the richest and the poorest. Decades of individualism, competition and state-encouraged selfishness – combined with a systematic crushing of unions and the ever-increasing criminalisation of dissent – have made Britain one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.

Images of burning buildings, cars aflame and stripped-out shops may provide spectacular fodder for a restless media, ever hungry for new stories and fresh groups to demonise, but we will understand nothing of these events if we ignore the history and the context in which they occur.

[NotLostJustWandering]

I have mixed feelings about these riots, just as I did about LA back in '91 (or was it '92?). On the one hand, total sympathy for the rioters' anger, and admiration for their effectiveness in evading police. On the other, I'm horrified at the randomness of the violence; that ordinary people must take the brunt of it. This is not revolution. The government has to clean up the mess, but the government isn't getting taken down. Maybe the Tories will get voted out of office next election, maybe not. But the men running the democracy show will continue to be in charge. I'd like to see violence of this sort directed against appropriate targets, like banks and political offices.

[NotLostJustWandering]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biJgILxGK0o&feature=share

Description:
"Darcus Howe, a West Indian Writer and Broadcaster with a voice about the riots. Speaking about the mistreatment of youths by police leading to an up-roar and the ignorance of both police and the governement. Intelligent black male. SEND THIS TO EVERYONE!

(Also, did anyone notice that the interviewer tried to make him ignorant... Complete back-fire I must say)"

[darkeyes]

If you had the right to keep arms within your homes and businesses, this wouldn't have gotten so far. I dare any group of torch and pitchfork waving thugs to attack my home. A shotgun blast over their heads is more than enough to disavow them of any inclination to make a run for my front door. And if not? I have 4 shotguns and three sons all who are versed in their use. It only takes two shotguns to hold a siege off of a home.

Pasa

Right, Pasa.. if u say it, it must be true...

Dread to think of the carnage if peeps had guns as commonly as u lot... we have riots in this country on this scale hardly ever.. 30 years ago was the last time.. an that justifies armin the peeps? yea right...

[NotLostJustWandering]

Facebook conversation with an English friend:

RF: *
how is USA covering the london riots?

AZ:
Front page of the NY Times yesterday.
*
Just read the coverage this jmorning

RF:
i stayed up all night watching it, chatting to my mates. most of them live in the hotspots, hackney, camden, clapham,

AZ:
so what do they think: legitimate political rebellion, or opportunistic looting?

RF:
both
*
my friend who has a way with words wrote somethign very poignant

AZ:
yes?

RF:
i mean it's echoing: something is wrong. something is wrong. we always knew that, but something is very wrong. there are enough people, people we see every day with nothing to lose to the point that they're destroying their own homes, because their homes mean little to them, because they haven't given them enough back to give them a community, a sense of safety, a minimal degree of education, and thus a sense of value. they're lashing out, animalistically, with nothing to lose, and the right, so i hear, in my kitchen and on the bbc, are still using words like thugs and criminals and trying to admonish a confused, disappointed wave of anger without acknowledging any responsibility or understanding for what's going on. i'm not too sure what i'm saying, or if i get it. just so saddened, yet so utterly useless at the moment, which ends in you feeling responsible. i think we all are it's just easier to sleep at night when it's not thrown in our faces as a wave of despair from people our age, in our neighborhoods.

RF:
i think its that plus adding to it the massive advertising campaigns and the commodification of the world, its not who you are its what you own, and these people have nothign in their lives, and no prospects and see all this shit in the news that they dont understand apart form seeing it bacl and white the governemtn is fucking shit up and we are suffering, and decide that they can take what they want like this as its the only way to gain wealth

AZ:
well put
*
it reminds me of LA after Rodney King. I had similar mixed feelings, strongly disapproving of the indiscrimate thieving, violence, and destruction, while feeling great empathy nd sharing the anger

RF:
exactly
*
its awful what is happening, but you cant just ignore the social aspects, the world is falling apart

AZ:
I have to say I admire the deftness of mobs using Blackberrys to mobolilize on the spot & evade the police. would love to hear of such things happening in damascus

#

*
do you think anything good will come of it? II can't remember LA '91 making any lasting change

RF:

*
fuck knows mate
*
nothign good comes from anything
*
several millions march against war
*
we go to war with 2 countries
*
peaceful or violent, nothign will change short of the entire population really coming to terms with the fact that the way the modern world works is just wrong

AZ:
*
That's a tall order. Look how stupid most of the population is.

RF:
*
exactly
*
our world truelly is and not even being drastic, proper fucked. which means even people who are clued up and switched on give up trying to change it and just become selfish like everyone else and try and make the most of their limited lifespan

AZ:
*
what to do?

RF:
*
exactly
*
fucking riot and destroy it all

[darkeyes]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots?CMP=twt_gu

There is a context to London's riots that can't be ignored

Those condemning the events in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture

Since the coalition came to power just over a year ago, the country has seen multiple student protests, occupations of dozens of universities, several strikes, a half-a-million-strong trade union march and now unrest on the streets of the capital (preceded by clashes with Bristol police in Stokes Croft earlier in the year). Each of these events was sparked by a different cause, yet all take place against a backdrop of brutal cuts and enforced austerity measures. The government knows very well that it is taking a gamble, and that its policies run the risk of sparking mass unrest on a scale we haven't seen since the early 1980s. With people taking to the streets of Tottenham, Edmonton, Brixton and elsewhere over the past few nights, we could be about to see the government enter a sustained and serious losing streak.

The policies of the past year may have clarified the division between the entitled and the dispossessed in extreme terms, but the context for social unrest cuts much deeper. The fatal shooting of Mark Duggan last Thursday, where it appears, contrary to initial accounts, that only police bullets were fired, is another tragic event in a longer history of the Metropolitan police's treatment of ordinary Londoners, especially those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and the singling out of specific areas and individuals for monitoring, stop and search and daily harassment.

One journalist wrote that he was surprised how many people in Tottenham knew of and were critical of the IPCC, but there should be nothing surprising about this. When you look at the figures for deaths in police custody (at least 333 since 1998 and not a single conviction of any police officer for any of them), then the IPCC and the courts are seen by many, quite reasonably, to be protecting the police rather than the people.

Combine understandable suspicion of and resentment towards the police based on experience and memory with high poverty and large unemployment and the reasons why people are taking to the streets become clear. (Haringey, the borough that includes Tottenham, has the fourth highest level of child poverty in London and an unemployment rate of 8.8%, double the national average, with one vacancy for every 54 seeking work in the borough.)

Those condemning the events of the past couple of nights in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture: a country in which the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest, where consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy, and where, according to the OECD, social mobility is worse than any other developed country.

As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, phenomena usually described as "social problems" (crime, ill-health, imprisonment rates, mental illness) are far more common in unequal societies than ones with better economic distribution and less gap between the richest and the poorest. Decades of individualism, competition and state-encouraged selfishness – combined with a systematic crushing of unions and the ever-increasing criminalisation of dissent – have made Britain one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.

Images of burning buildings, cars aflame and stripped-out shops may provide spectacular fodder for a restless media, ever hungry for new stories and fresh groups to demonise, but we will understand nothing of these events if we ignore the history and the context in which they occur.

Atiq.. ta for trying to see that there is a bigger picture than just absolute mayhem and ciminality.. I am struggling to do this myself.. there is something more to all this than just people running riot, thieving and destroying homes and property willy nilly. I am not excusing the rioters one bit.. the poor and dispossessed often find themselves to the fore in a fight against the forces which they see as having failed them... there is an element of that here but for the life of me I just cant get my head around it nor can I understand fully just what has happened and the real meaning of it.

The government talks up the criminality as if thats all there is.... I think a little time will be needed for the smoke to clear for us to begin the process of analysing just what happened here, why and what can we do to ensure it doesnt happen again.

The actions of the police the distrust people have for them are an area which has to be considered.... The police are often viewed as a law unto themselves and the IPCC is not considered by many people fair and just in the way it investigates the police. It is considered partial. Its record in investigating the police is patchy at best.... but there is far far more going on here than just police distrust. Just what we cannot yet see. We make a great mistake if we simply look at just criminality and thuggery, but equally we cannot look at this as a political protest against injustice. Somehow all the strands of these riots are so intertwined it is going to take some undoing to get to the bottom of it...

Criminality always increases during times of recession as the poor and dispossessed become even more poor and dispossessed, and greater in number as the yawning gap between the rich and poor becomes an even greater chasm.. the present government and its policies have contributed to that and it cant be ignored.. but it is not the whole story...

[niftyshellshock]

Only in the West could rioters wearing designer duds with iPods and iPhones, looting immigrant shop owners and beating them up -- be considered "poverty stricken"
So disgustingly privileged, I only wish they could face and understand what those in so many other developing nations go through to have what they have. Ungrateful, privileged wretches.
Dead bodies, actually dire conflict goes on in the world every single day, but a few people's shit gets burnt in England and everyone in the United States is suddenly a humanitarian.

Send in the troops. Worked in 1883 in the United States and everyone chilled the fuck out.

[Pasadenacpl2]

There is a reason riots don't last long in the US and never become widespread. It is not the use of armed policemen or riot gear that causes this almost instant cooling off once the powder keg is lit. The UK has that, and yet, it doesn't seem to work.

The difference: an armed citizenry. This keeps rioting contained to small areas, and even then keeps it focused against the government for the most part. Even within the mob mentality, people understand that while the police and military are loath to fire upon civilians, a shop owner defending his life's work has no problem pulling the trigger. No one wants to be the first one shot.

Also, the earlier concern about the rioters being worae if they had guns...people who riot almost never have guns. I cannot say why this is true...but statistically it is what is is.

An armed society is a polite society. ~ Mark Twain

Pasa

[darkeyes]

There is a reason riots don't last long in the US and never become widespread. It is not the use of armed policemen or riot gear that causes this almost instant cooling off once the powder keg is lit. The UK has that, and yet, it doesn't seem to work.

The difference: an armed citizenry. This keeps rioting contained to small areas, and even then keeps it focused against the government for the most part. Even within the mob mentality, people understand that while the police and military are loath to fire upon civilians, a shop owner defending his life's work has no problem pulling the trigger. No one wants to be the first one shot.

Also, the earlier concern about the rioters being worae if they had guns...people who riot almost never have guns. I cannot say why this is true...but statistically it is what is is.

An armed society is a polite society. ~ Mark Twain

Pasa

Its wot goes on on the 30 years tween big riots Pasa.. wudnt like 2 think we would ever go down ur road an have umpteen times the numbers of killings an God knows wot else put down to guns an ya armed citizenry..ya armed as a matter of course polis an all.. an ya armed banditry... think we will pass on that useless piece of advice tyvm..

Have never been to ur country btw Pasa.. mite pay a lil visit 1a these days.. but much prefer the European way wich dusnt quite rely so much on blowing heads off.. but me sister has.. an Mark Twain's lil piece of advice? Well she saw much that wos polite an met loadsa ver nice polite peeps.. but she also met summa the rudest most obnxious peeps ya cud imagine... an several bastard bobbies fulla their own importance.. bit like here really... cept scarier.. her words.. not mine... also far more likely 2 meet an early violent death in ur place.. will stick 2 our rather inept waya doin things ta Pasa.. wanna grow up 2 be a lil old lady an see me kids wiv ther kids... reckon they will be bit safer an happier here for all the shit we havta put up wiv...

[Pasadenacpl2]

Hrm..the numbers don't seem to agree with you, Fran. I like data. It's our friend.

According to the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence, the rate of violent deaths (homicide) in Europe is 5.4/100,000. North America is only 6.5 per 100,000. So, 5 or 6 people per 100,000 whether you are in Europe or the United States. Statistically, this is an insignificant difference.

Incidentally, more than half of the United State's gun related deaths are suicides, and not the result of violent crime. And the suicide rate in both of our nations is almost identical.

Unlike yourself, Fran, I have been to your nation multiple times as well as living and traveling all over Europe. I can safely say that the rudest people I have ever met are the French, and the people who fear their police the most are the Brits. We don't fear our police here. Not like y'all do.

You seem to envision the United States as some sort of wild west cowboys with guns on our hips and gun violence happening all over the place. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gun ownership is not a thing we do lightly. We take it seriously. We have courses on gun safety, and we have licensing classes to carry it concealed (which most do that I know). Guns aren't out and in your face. They are kept close, and used wisely, if at all. Most police officers go entire careers without ever having to draw their service pistol, much less fire it.

I leave with this thought. When weapons are made illegal, only criminals will have them.

Pasa

[tenni]

I am inclined to think that Pasa is way off topic. Applying his cultural thoughts/beliefs do not transfer well to more generally peaceful nations.

Citizens standing up to thugs is a good idea but guns were not needed to stop looters in London the other night in some areas. On CBCnewsworld there was a fellow who lived in the part of area where the riots started. He stated that it was scarey and arson and looting was rampant on the streets where the "electronics" were(his words for large stores I guess selling electronic equipment etc.?). He and fellow neighbours stood at the end of their street and when the gangs approached they were told that they should turn back. None of the men telling them to turn back had a gun. The rioters did turn back and did not try to break through the twenty to thirty people blocking their street. The independent shops on that street were not damaged. Neither the looters nor the citizens had guns. From what he said...not one punch was even thrown. No one died. Bad things have happened but other than two people no one has died from gun fire. (one died before the riots...not sure about the other as to how he was shot?)

Citizens with guns are not the solution at all.

I thought that it was fantastic that scores.....hundreds? of British people united via Facebook to go out yesterday and clean up the streets with brooms!!!!! Fantastic. Standing up for what you believe without more violence. Good on ya...Brits!!!!

There will be much evaluation as to what is going on in Britain and hopefully this doesn't spill over to other countries. It has been happening in such places as Greece. The difference is that it is not yet clear why these people are rioting. There is an ambiguous factor going on here.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I am inclined to think that Pasa is way off topic. Applying his cultural thoughts/beliefs do not transfer well to more generally peaceful nations.

Please show me your standards for being a more peaceful nation, Tenni. Please, Tenni, show me some data to back up your assertions.

I agree that it was great that the citizens stood up using brooms. You use what you have. That has been true since time began. Had they had guns, they would have not had a need to do so after a full week into the riots. It would have ended almost immediately.

Pasa

[jamieknyc]

Its wot goes on on the 30 years tween big riots Pasa.. wudnt like 2 think we would ever go down ur road an have umpteen times the numbers of killings an God knows wot else put down to guns an ya armed citizenry..ya armed as a matter of course polis an all.. an ya armed banditry... think we will pass on that useless piece of advice tyvm..

Have never been to ur country btw Pasa.. mite pay a lil visit 1a these days.. but much prefer the European way wich dusnt quite rely so much on blowing heads off.. but me sister has.. an Mark Twain's lil piece of advice? Well she saw much that wos polite an met loadsa ver nice polite peeps.. but she also met summa the rudest most obnxious peeps ya cud imagine... an several bastard bobbies fulla their own importance.. bit like here really... cept scarier.. her words.. not mine... also far more likely 2 meet an early violent death in ur place.. will stick 2 our rather inept waya doin things ta Pasa.. wanna grow up 2 be a lil old lady an see me kids wiv ther kids... reckon they will be bit safer an happier here for all the shit we havta put up wiv...

Don't believe all the bluster you read on the internet, especially if you have never been to the United States. Ninety per cent of Americans have never been in a place where a riot took place anytime, let alone defending their homes and properties against rioters with guns. If you visit here, I doubt you will go to any place where a riot took place anytime in your lifetime, or meet anyone with a gun except police. In places where there were riots, there were instances in which shopkeepers prevented their stores from being looted by being there with a firearm. However, 90% of Americans don't do anything more dangerous than driving to the mall.

[darkeyes]

Hrm..the numbers don't seem to agree with you, Fran. I like data. It's our friend.

According to the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence, the rate of violent deaths (homicide) in Europe is 5.4/100,000. North America is only 6.5 per 100,000. So, 5 or 6 people per 100,000 whether you are in Europe or the United States. Statistically, this is an insignificant difference.

Incidentally, more than half of the United State's gun related deaths are suicides, and not the result of violent crime. And the suicide rate in both of our nations is almost identical.

Unlike yourself, Fran, I have been to your nation multiple times as well as living and traveling all over Europe. I can safely say that the rudest people I have ever met are the French, and the people who fear their police the most are the Brits. We don't fear our police here. Not like y'all do.

You seem to envision the United States as some sort of wild west cowboys with guns on our hips and gun violence happening all over the place. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gun ownership is not a thing we do lightly. We take it seriously. We have courses on gun safety, and we have licensing classes to carry it concealed (which most do that I know). Guns aren't out and in your face. They are kept close, and used wisely, if at all. Most police officers go entire careers without ever having to draw their service pistol, much less fire it.

I leave with this thought. When weapons are made illegal, only criminals will have them.

Pasa

No? In Britain in 2008 there were 42 gun related deaths, not all murders. Compare that to the numbers in your country? In the US in 2004 there were well over 9000 not counting other gun related death. Even allowing for the disparity on population size I think my clim holds up better than yours. Yes we have other ways people kill each other but even then comparing the numbers who die as a result of murder of any kind in the UK you have a far greater prospect of not bein butchered in this country before your time than ever you have where you are. Easy availability of guns does not make a society more polite but invariably more callous and brutal. You can argue that point all you like, but thats life as they say...

This country is far from perfect and crime is appallingly high, possibly even higher than in your own.. but one thing we do not have is out of control homicide rates because of an irrational attachemnt to guns..

I dont think the US is like the wild west at all... I do think it is a much less safe place in which to live than where I do... and do think that American attachment to guns, that bloody right to bear arms, has much to do with it being so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

[jamieknyc]

I dont think the US is like the wild west at all... I do think it is a much less safe place in which to live than where I do... and do think that American attachment to guns, that bloody right to bear arms, has much to do with it being so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

*You* however, and people like you, are unlikely to go anywhere in teh U.S. where you are at risk from gun violence.

[darkeyes]

*You* however, and people like you, are unlikely to go anywhere in teh U.S. where you are at risk from gun violence.

Thats a stupid thing to say Jamie..

..like most of us I care about my skin.. but if i had need to go somewhere where there was a likelihood of being faced with a gun that wouldnt stop me going.. but like anyone else I would be daft, no, stupid not to weigh up the risk... I have been faced with both armed police and soldiers now and then while on demos.. thats just an occupational hazard of standing up for your rights in and round Europe..... and even a simple thing like going on me hols and flying has its own risks in that regard...

[jamieknyc]

Thats a stupid thing to say Jamie..

..like most of us I care about my skin.. but if i had need to go somewhere where there was a likelihood of being faced with a gun that wouldnt stop me going.. but like anyone else I would be daft, no, stupid not to weigh up the risk... I have been faced with both armed police and soldiers now and then while on demos.. thats just an occupational hazard of standing up for your rights in and round Europe..... and even a simple thing like going on me hols and flying has its own risks in that regard...

I can't conceive of a scenario in which you would have a reason to go into dangerous inner-city neighorhoods in the United States. Also, even if you went to a 'demo,' any 'demo' you are likely to go to would be unlikely to be confronted with anything more dangerous than orange plastic netting.

[niftyshellshock]

I can't conceive of a scenario in which you would have a reason to go into dangerous inner-city neighorhoods in the United States. Also, even if you went to a 'demo,' any 'demo' you are likely to go to would be unlikely to be confronted with anything more dangerous than orange plastic netting.

Hey now, those riots in England are srs bzns. Think of all the poor dustbins in Shaftsbury that have been knocked over by the hooligans. OH THE HUMANITY.

[tenni]

Pasa
How did this become a thread about the USA?

Number of murders with guns
*in United Kingdom-34 (39th highest number of murders in the world out of 46 with last place a three way tie with all three having no murders with guns)
* in the USA-9 369 (4th highest number of murders in the world..that's nine thousand three hundred sixty-nine for the non metric readers)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

[love1234]

I have mixed feelings about these riots, just as I did about LA back in '91 (or was it '92?). On the one hand, total sympathy for the rioters' anger, and admiration for their effectiveness in evading police. On the other, I'm horrified at the randomness of the violence; that ordinary people must take the brunt of it. This is not revolution. The government has to clean up the mess, but the government isn't getting taken down. Maybe the Tories will get voted out of office next election, maybe not. But the men running the democracy show will continue to be in charge. I'd like to see violence of this sort directed against appropriate targets, like banks and political offices.

Agree 100% but the evil elite have been playing these games for a super long time. They know how to get the people in and up roar against someone else.

He in the u.s. they are getting the blacks to act up with these flash riots. Many whites are fed up as many know someone that has been mugged, raped, shot or murdered by black thugs. The elite love to get people fighting against each other and not getting the pitch forks and all of us going after them. You can see that is working even on here. People are mad at the rioters not the criminal police state that caused the riots.

If things get bad for them they will do a big false flag attack and blame some country with their propaganda machines tv, new papers. This again always works and people wave the flag and hate the enemy and forget about the elites robbing them and their country.

The elites have been using these same old tricks for thousands of years. The people seem to always fall for them.

Voting really does not work as the elites own the printing press that print the money and they own both sides. They call it demon-crazy (democracy) and poli=many, ticks= bloodsuckers (politicks) for a reason. A demon-crazy bloodsucking system will never work for people.

[darkeyes]

I can't conceive of a scenario in which you would have a reason to go into dangerous inner-city neighorhoods in the United States. Also, even if you went to a 'demo,' any 'demo' you are likely to go to would be unlikely to be confronted with anything more dangerous than orange plastic netting.

You know Jamie, you do talk through your arse quite often. Off hand I cant think of any reason I would go into an inner city district in the US...
but I have been and do go to inner city heavy, pretty unpleasant and dangerous areas of this country and have been in quite a few on continental Europe as well as the city of Tunis. You have no idea what I would and wouldn't do.

Parts of this city are drug addled council housing schemes consisting of pretty shambolic flats and are hardly the safest and I have friends there I visit quite regularly, as I do in Easterhouse in Glasgow and Castlemilk. Edinburgh has a reputation for gentility but it has areas which make your hair stand on end and are pretty heavy... and if u think Glasgow is a soft place then so is your head...pay a visit a couple of times a year as I do... see just how safe you feel there...

Half of my family are from and still live in very dangerous inner city areas of Manchester and Salford in the north of England. I still visit from time to time as I do friends in Tottenham and Hackney in London and in Croydon to the south of the city. All of these are areas which have gone up in smoke in one way or other in the last few days. I may be a well brought up girl from prosperous parents, but when u have a father whose family were miners and a mother whose family were brickies, cab drivers and labourers, you dont grow up soft. I may be a pacifist with absolute contempt for violence and guns, and don't deny I have a fear of both, but I was raised to face my fears and not be cowered by them.

The US is not so very different from this country in that many of its inner cities are rotten with violence and are very dangerous places.. that doesnt stop me visiting friends and family and staying when invited, drinking in the local pubs with those people and their friends and having a jolly time, going to working men's clubs, local dances, parties and other late night events... the threat of violence is never far away and gun crime, if much more rare, is always a possibility... Jamie.. scoff all u like.. hating guns and violence, loathing aspects of our society which should not be, does not make me run from them or avoid areas where I have reason to visit. U picked the wrong girl to make that accusation to...

...and if u think that the worst demonstrators in this country and in other European countries face is orange plastic netting, you need to broaden your horizons, pop over for a lil hol and take part in a few...

[darkeyes]

Pasa
How did this become a thread about the USA?

Number of murders with guns
*in United Kingdom-34 (39th highest number of murders in the world out of 46 with last place a three way tie with all three having no murders with guns)
* in the USA-9 369 (4th highest number of murders in the world..that's nine thousand three hundred sixty-nine for the non metric readers)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

It became so, Tenni babes, cos Pasa wants to arm the British people and turn us into nice safe place just like the US....seems we are about 1500 gun murders short of our target....;)

[Pasadenacpl2]

No? In Britain in 2008 there were 42 gun related deaths, not all murders. Compare that to the numbers in your country? In the US in 2004 there were well over 9000 not counting other gun related death. Even allowing for the disparity on population size I think my clim holds up better than yours. Yes we have other ways people kill each other but even then comparing the numbers who die as a result of murder of any kind in the UK you have a far greater prospect of not bein butchered in this country before your time than ever you have where you are. Easy availability of guns does not make a society more polite but invariably more callous and brutal. You can argue that point all you like, but thats life as they say...

This country is far from perfect and crime is appallingly high, possibly even higher than in your own.. but one thing we do not have is out of control homicide rates because of an irrational attachemnt to guns..

I dont think the US is like the wild west at all... I do think it is a much less safe place in which to live than where I do... and do think that American attachment to guns, that bloody right to bear arms, has much to do with it being so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

I want to address each of your statements in turn. Facts, and not opinions need to weigh in here.

"...but one thing we do not have is out of control homicide rates because of an irrational attachment to guns."

You make two assumptions here, setting up your strawman argument. The first assumption is that the US has out of control homicide rates. The second is that the source of this out of control rate is our irrational attachment to guns. I'll address each of these ideas.

1. The US homicide rate over the decade that just ended is 5.43/100,000. While the UK has a mere 1.6/100k, the US rate is not exactly out of this world. In fact, 95 nations have rates that are higher.

2. The US homicide rate has been dropping since 1980. In 1980 there were 23k homicides committed in the US. In 2009 there were under 15k. Keeping in mind that our population has grown by almost 100 million people since that time, and we see significant drops in the murder rate.

3. In the same time, the homicide rate in the UK has gone up according to the UK parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

So, what we have is UK with a low overall rate, but one that has been on the rise since 1960 (the rise is slight, but measurable). And we have the US with a slightly higher rate, but one that has been significantly lowering since 1980.

4. In the US, gun ownership has risen since 1980. In 1980 we think* gun ownership was at about 35%. By contrast, the current rate is at about 42% and reports from gun shows is that they have been getting constant influxes of new gun owners especially since 9/11.

So, your two assertions are that a: we have an out of control homicide rate, and that our homicide rate is due to our attachment with guns. The data clearly refutes your first assertion. The data supports your second one...as personal gun ownership rises, homicide rates go down. We can see the corrolary to this as the rates in the UK have risen since the gun control laws have gone into effect in 1967.

Further, the violent crime rate in the UK is far and away higher than in the US. Assaults: 133% more in the UK. Car thefts: 44% more in the UK. Rape victims: 125% more in the UK. Total crimes per capita: 7% more in the UK.

source: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

From the link you posted:

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[40] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[41][42] Justice Minister Mr Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up.

The "since 1998" is significant. In 1997 the very strict gun control laws went into effect.

Also from the site you posted:

However, depriving citizens of means of self-defense is not without a cost: the low rate in homicides is offset by a massive rate of other violent crime. For example, comparing London and New York, cities of very similar population and demographics, the rate of assaults and robberies is over six times as high,[3] and 7 or 10 times nationwide (depending on statistic used).


So, one of your assertions is false, the other seems to be true, but not in the way you intended. You seem to have an idea about what the US is, and it isn't true when facts and data are brought to bear. I am glad that the UK Parliament, the United Nations, and the NationMaster website could ensure that facts, and not our opinions carry the day where this is concerned.

Pasa


*the reason for the "think" is that gun owners are very hesitant to give factual information about their weapons. The idea that the government could then come in and take them is prevalent within our national psyche. Especially with the pushes in the 1990s to get rid of the 2nd Ammendment, gun owners are naturally shy about answering such questions.

[love1234]

No? In Britain in 2008 there were 42 gun related deaths, not all murders. Compare that to the numbers in your country? In the US in 2004 there were well over 9000 not counting other gun related death. Even allowing for the disparity on population size I think my clim holds up better than yours. Yes we have other ways people kill each other but even then comparing the numbers who die as a result of murder of any kind in the UK you have a far greater prospect of not bein butchered in this country before your time than ever you have where you are. Easy availability of guns does not make a society more polite but invariably more callous and brutal. You can argue that point all you like, but thats life as they say...

This country is far from perfect and crime is appallingly high, possibly even higher than in your own.. but one thing we do not have is out of control homicide rates because of an irrational attachemnt to guns..

I dont think the US is like the wild west at all... I do think it is a much less safe place in which to live than where I do... and do think that American attachment to guns, that bloody right to bear arms, has much to do with it being so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime
In the inner cities where most these murders and gun crimes are done the non criminals can not carry guns. So you have criminals and the cops with guns most everyone that follows the rules has no gun.

There is near no gun crimes in rual areas where near everyone has guns. People are very polite where I live and most everyone has guns.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Thanks for that reminder.

Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun control laws in the nation (or did until last year when they were struck down as unconstitutional). Washington DC and Chicago have vied for the title of "Murder Capital of the US" for years (with New Orleans and Detroit taking the title a few times in and amongst them).

Pasa

[tenni]

Dear Mr & Mrs Cameron,

Why did you never take the time to teach your child basic morality?

As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property. We know that you were absent parents who left your child to be brought up by a school rather than taking responsibility for his behaviour yourselves. The fact that he became a delinquent with no sense of respect for the property of others can only reflect that fact that you are terrible, lazy human beings who failed even in teaching your children the difference between right and wrong. I can only assume that his contempt for the small business owners of Oxford is indicative of his wider values.

Even worse, your neglect led him to fall in with a bad crowd.

There’s Michael Gove, whose wet-lipped rage was palpable on Newsnight last night. This is the Michael Gove who confused one of his houses with another of his houses in order to avail himself of £7,000 of the taxpayers’ money to which he was not entitled (or £13,000, depending on which house you think was which).

....Or Hazel Blears, who was interviewed in full bristling peahen mode for almost all of last night. She once forgot which house she lived in, and benefited to the tune of £18,000.*At the time she said it would take her reputation years to recover. Unfortunately not.

But, of course, this is different. This is just understandable confusion over the rules of how many houses*you are meant to have as an MP. This doesn’t show the naked greed of people stealing plasma tellies.

Fortunately, we have the Met Police to look after us. We’ll ignore the fact that two of its senior officers have had to resign in the last six weeks amid suspicions of widespread corruption within the force.

We’ll ignore Andy Hayman, who went for champagne dinners with those he was meant to be investigating, and then joined the company on leaving the Met.

Of course, Mr and Mrs Cameron, your son is right. There are parts of society that are not just broken, they are sick. Riddled with disease from top to bottom.

Just let me be clear about this (It’s a good phrase, Mr and Mrs Cameron, and one I looted from every sentence your son utters, just as he looted it from Tony Blair), I am not justifying or minimising in any way what has been done by the looters over the last few nights. What I am doing, however, is expressing shock and dismay that your son and his friends feel themselves in any way to be guardians of morality in this country.

Can they really, as 650 people who have shown themselves to be venal pygmies, moral dwarves at every opportunity over the last 20 years, bleat at others about ‘criminality’. Those who decided that when they broke the rules (the rules they themselves set) they, on the whole wouldn’t face the consequences of their actions?

Are they really surprised that this country’s culture is swamped in greed, in the acquisition of material things, in a lust for consumer goods of the most base kind? Really?

Our politicians are for sale and they do not care who knows it.
Oh yes, and then*there’s the expenses thing. Widescale abuse of the very systems they designed, almost all of them grasping what they could while they remained MPs, to build their nest egg for the future at the public’s expense. They even now whine on Twitter about having their expenses claims for getting back to Parliament while much of the country is on fire*subject to any examination. True public servants.

The last few days have revealed some truths, and some heartening truths. The fact that the #riotcleanup crews had organised themselves before David Cameron even made time for a public statement is heartening. The fact that local communities came together to keep their neighbourhoods safe when the police failed is heartening. The fact that there were peace vigils being organised (even as the police tried to dissuade people) is heartening.

There is hope for this country. But we must stop looking upwards for it. The politicians are the ones leading the charge into the gutter.

David Cameron was entirely right when he said: “It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to think that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities, and that their actions do not have consequences.”

He was more right than he knew.

And I blame the parents.

http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/

[ukmale32]

the people rioting are mindless idiots, some have been interviewed with their hoodies on hiding their spineless selves away - they're rioting because it's easy to be lawless.

Think of any excuse you like, these people have had the same chances to do right & wrong as anyone else.

[ukmale32]

Facebook conversation with an English friend:

RF: *
how is USA covering the london riots?

AZ:
Front page of the NY Times yesterday.
*
Just read the coverage this jmorning

RF:
i stayed up all night watching it, chatting to my mates. most of them live in the hotspots, hackney, camden, clapham,

AZ:
so what do they think: legitimate political rebellion, or opportunistic looting?

RF:
both
*
my friend who has a way with words wrote somethign very poignant

AZ:
yes?

RF:
i mean it's echoing: something is wrong. something is wrong. we always knew that, but something is very wrong. there are enough people, people we see every day with nothing to lose to the point that they're destroying their own homes, because their homes mean little to them, because they haven't given them enough back to give them a community, a sense of safety, a minimal degree of education, and thus a sense of value. they're lashing out, animalistically, with nothing to lose, and the right, so i hear, in my kitchen and on the bbc, are still using words like thugs and criminals and trying to admonish a confused, disappointed wave of anger without acknowledging any responsibility or understanding for what's going on. i'm not too sure what i'm saying, or if i get it. just so saddened, yet so utterly useless at the moment, which ends in you feeling responsible. i think we all are it's just easier to sleep at night when it's not thrown in our faces as a wave of despair from people our age, in our neighborhoods.

RF:
i think its that plus adding to it the massive advertising campaigns and the commodification of the world, its not who you are its what you own, and these people have nothign in their lives, and no prospects and see all this shit in the news that they dont understand apart form seeing it bacl and white the governemtn is fucking shit up and we are suffering, and decide that they can take what they want like this as its the only way to gain wealth

AZ:
well put
*
it reminds me of LA after Rodney King. I had similar mixed feelings, strongly disapproving of the indiscrimate thieving, violence, and destruction, while feeling great empathy nd sharing the anger

RF:
exactly
*
its awful what is happening, but you cant just ignore the social aspects, the world is falling apart

AZ:
I have to say I admire the deftness of mobs using Blackberrys to mobolilize on the spot & evade the police. would love to hear of such things happening in damascus

#

*
do you think anything good will come of it? II can't remember LA '91 making any lasting change

RF:

*
fuck knows mate
*
nothign good comes from anything
*
several millions march against war
*
we go to war with 2 countries
*
peaceful or violent, nothign will change short of the entire population really coming to terms with the fact that the way the modern world works is just wrong

AZ:
*
That's a tall order. Look how stupid most of the population is.

RF:
*
exactly
*
our world truelly is and not even being drastic, proper fucked. which means even people who are clued up and switched on give up trying to change it and just become selfish like everyone else and try and make the most of their limited lifespan

AZ:
*
what to do?

RF:
*
exactly
*
fucking riot and destroy it all

What a complete idiot.

[darkeyes]

I deliberately selected the link not to hide just how criminal and violent society in this country can be but to show that it is just that... I can quibble about the odd stat such as rape, and probably even drug related crime, for the US does have slightly higher rape statistics than the UK and there seems a flaw in your claim about drugs. But for all that, the UK has an overall crime rate comparable to and possibly higher than the US and I am not making light of that at all.

That we are a more violent society I am unsure of since things such a simple touch on the shoulder which is unwarranted and unsolicited can and does lead to convictions for assault in quite large numbers.... but I am not going to minimise the trouble British society has in respect of violent crime... what we do not have in these islands is the much greater likelihood of dying as a result of crime, and even less of dying as a result of gun crime. I accept that the US has had a huge fall over time as well as a huge increase in population... in roughly the same period the UK has seen its population rise substantially also by about 40% of the US rate in euqivalent terms and has seen a large increase in crime and of violent crime but for all that increase much less of an increase when it comes to murder including murder with firearms... these have been falling back over the last few years but I fully expect them to rise again as police numbers are cut and more people feel the full effects of the recession...

.. but Pasa, for all the increase in crime we have seen, and all the increase in violent crime, we have not seen a rise in the murder rate to anything like US levels now or have we ever. What constitutes a crime in one country and what is criminal in another are often different. So strict comparison can be difficult. But even if we do accept that my country is a more criminal place than yours, something I do not necessarily accept because we cannot compare criminality exactly.. but even if we do... we do not have the vast numbers of fatalities which your country does either as a result of gun crime or as a result of crime generally... we simply do not have anything like the murder rate of the US or indeed anything like the numbers of fatalities which result from firearm use.

Yes this country is a dangerous place in many respects... but dangerous as it is we are four or five times less likely to die as a result of gun crime as we would be if we lived in the US. We are much much less likely to be killed by a firearm than if we lived in the US, and we would be considerably less likely to die as a result of criminal activity than were we to live in the US. These are inescapable facts and speak volumes to my mind....

We too have large rural areas with relatively little violent crime. The US doesn't have a monopoly on that guns or no guns. So that is a bit of a red herring. Most people do not own guns in our countryside. Relatively few do. But what isnt a red herring, is that since the early 1960s, when criminals began using firearms to a much greater degree than they had before, and the police have increasingly responded in kind, is that British gun crime has increased consistently, and we have seen an increase slowly but perceptibly in the numbers who die as a result of gun crime.

So we can argue crime rates and violent crime rates all you like. The proof of the pudding is not whether or not our country is criminal or not.. it is in how many of the people of our society we can keep from becoming a murder statistic....

[Pasadenacpl2]

Umm....did you actually read what I posted?

Your murder rate has gone up (still lower, but it has gone up and is rising). And your violent crime rate has QUADRUPLED since the 1997 gun laws.

Ours, by contrast, has gone down since gun ownership has increased.

You complain about the murder rate here as if it's off the charts....I showed you that this is not true. You are only, btw, 3 times more likely to die (1.7 *3 =5.1) in our nation, not 5 or 6 times more likely.

And even with that...we're talking 5 in 100k. Such a small number that if it were an outbreak of a disease the CDC wouldn't bother with it.

Look out your window, Fran. The Fiddler plays while Rome burns. As you said, the proof is in the pudding. The proof is, your populace is far more likely to fall victim to crime than ours is. You have riots throughout the entire island. Riots that could have been stopped the first time one shop owner fired a shotgun. The sound of a shotgun is an amazing thing where riot control is concerned. It's like a stampeding herd. Fire off the shotgun and amazingly...they stop.

Yes, a few more of us die (4 more people per 100k each year). But, fewer of us die than would be the case without the weapons. The proof of that is 30 years of increased gun ownership and 30 years of decreasing murder rate. You just can't argue that. 10k fewer murders each year with a population that is 100 million people larger than it was. You just can't argue with those results.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Oh, and in case you missed my point: in the hands of a law abiding citizen, a gun serves more purpose than just to shoot people. It's very presence and brandishment can prevent most attempts at violence. This comes down to two ideas:

*If a person is going to commit murder, they will do so whether they have a gun or not.

*However, if a law abiding citizen needs to protect themselves, they will be less likely to do so successfully with anything less.

Pasa

[love1234]

You know Jamie, you do talk through your arse quite often. Off hand I cant think of any reason I would go into an inner city district in the US...
but I have been and do go to inner city heavy, pretty unpleasant and dangerous areas of this country and have been in quite a few on continental Europe as well as the city of Tunis. You have no idea what I would and wouldn't do.

Parts of this city are drug addled council housing schemes consisting of pretty shambolic flats and are hardly the safest and I have friends there I visit quite regularly, as I do in Easterhouse in Glasgow and Castlemilk. Edinburgh has a reputation for gentility but it has areas which make your hair stand on end and are pretty heavy... and if u think Glasgow is a soft place then so is your head...pay a visit a couple of times a year as I do... see just how safe you feel there...

Half of my family are from and still live in very dangerous inner city areas of Manchester and Salford in the north of England. I still visit from time to time as I do friends in Tottenham and Hackney in London and in Croydon to the south of the city. All of these are areas which have gone up in smoke in one way or other in the last few days. I may be a well brought up girl from prosperous parents, but when u have a father whose family were miners and a mother whose family were brickies, cab drivers and labourers, you dont grow up soft. I may be a pacifist with absolute contempt for violence and guns, and don't deny I have a fear of both, but I was raised to face my fears and not be cowered by them.

The US is not so very different from this country in that many of its inner cities are rotten with violence and are very dangerous places.. that doesnt stop me visiting friends and family and staying when invited, drinking in the local pubs with those people and their friends and having a jolly time, going to working men's clubs, local dances, parties and other late night events... the threat of violence is never far away and gun crime, if much more rare, is always a possibility... Jamie.. scoff all u like.. hating guns and violence, loathing aspects of our society which should not be, does not make me run from them or avoid areas where I have reason to visit. U picked the wrong girl to make that accusation to...

...and if u think that the worst demonstrators in this country and in other European countries face is orange plastic netting, you need to broaden your horizons, pop over for a lil hol and take part in a few...

"hating guns"

Hating guns means you are happy to be a good slave. It means you could give a shit. You will not protect your family or island.

We here or the many of the white people here well we love our familys we want ot protect them from thugs and criminals. We want the world to know if they invade the u.s. that every or most every white person will fight till last one of you invaders die.

Guns mean freedom when used right. White people came to this land to be free.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."-- Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446

If ture American's riot (revolt) with their guns no banker, gangster or blood sucking politician will be safe. Only then is there a chance for getting peoples freedom back.

I don't think you have a clue to what a dangerous city is?

By the way the Bible states because you gave up your freedom (guns) and turned against God "House of Lords" spits in Gods face.

Your island will be invaded and the living will be taken off as slaves in ships more than likely by the Russians and Chinese.

You gave up your freedom and the invaders will murder most of you quick.

We in the u.s. have near the same future but for now we have our guns and can at least fight back.

[darkeyes]

I havent missed your point.. or any that you make.. we have not and never shall agree on this u and me. That murder has been rising (other than for the last 2 years) is not in dispute... the very fact being murdered by a firearm is in double figures is in my mind telling. To die as a result of criminal activity by firearm is miniscule compared to the US.... whether guns act as a deterrent is arguable. British people do not want easy availability of guns nor to be armed in the way the US is. Nor should they. I very much doubt they wish to to take that gamble.

We are now right off topic and so I will wrap up my little contribution to this argument as well as try and drag it back onto the subject. I hate violence of any description as I have often said. The society in which I live is often nasty, unpleasant and violent. Far too many people are killed and injured as a result of violence of all kinds. But if we have one area in which we have been relatively successful in combatting crime it is in the fact that crime by gun and deaths as a direct or indirect consequence of it are relatively rare. Something around one person a week. We will not go down your route, Pasa, but will find our own way of combatting violence on our streets. Going down your route would be far too much of a gamble and in my view counter productive.

I do not sit here and fiddle while Rome burns (even although I am quite an accomplished fiddler). I leave that to those who try so abysmally to run my country just as you do yours. What has happened over the last few days will not be prevented from recurring by the simple means of allowing police or people the right to carry guns as a matter of course. There are too many civil wars happening elsewhere to say that with certainty and violence in towns and cities around the world far worse than even those of the United States and anything we are seeing here. The US itself is not immune to great inner city riots with much looting and plundering.

Luckily the city in which I live is peaceful and calm and is enjoying its annual month long Arts festivals. But I would be a fool to pretend all is well even in this picture of tranquility for there is much violence even here. It would not surprise me if one or all of the great housing estates where so many deprived and poverty stricken people live, blow up and we see scenes such as has happened down south in the city's financial, business and tourist areas. But thankfully one thing this city does not have is a problem with gun crime. Such incidents are incredibly rare. Long may it remain so.

To turn your argument on its head... we have a greater ability to defend ourselves far more easily from an assault by another form of deadly weapon than we can do from a gun. A gun is incredibly impersonal and distance, surprise and a bullet can be very difficult things to defend against. You can claim that an armed citizenry would have prevented the riots of the last few days, but that cannot be said with absolute certainty. It is at least as likely that riots would still have taken place and that more people would have died than have done so to date. More innocent people, as well as the guilty, in defence of home or business, their children or their community.

This country does not have a gun culture in the sense yours does. Nor does it deserve to have one inflicted upon it. The people of this country will wisely in my view, resist any and all attempts to make firearms more liberally available.

[darkeyes]

"hating guns"

Hating guns means you are happy to be a good slave. It means you could give a shit. You will not protect your family or island.

We here or the many of the white people here well we love our familys we want ot protect them from thugs and criminals. We want the world to know if they invade the u.s. that every or most every white person will fight till last one of you invaders die.

Guns mean freedom when used right. White people came to this land to be free.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."-- Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446

If ture American's riot (revolt) with their guns no banker, gangster or blood sucking politician will be safe. Only then is there a chance for getting peoples freedom back.

I don't think you have a clue to what a dangerous city is?

By the way the Bible states because you gave up your freedom (guns) and turned against God "House of Lords" spits in Gods face.

Your island will be invaded and the living will be taken off as slaves in ships more than likely by the Russians and Chinese.

You gave up your freedom and the invaders will murder most of you quick.

We in the u.s. have near the same future but for now we have our guns and can at least fight back.

..and u are talking through ur arse an all...

[Katja]

We here or the many of the white people here well we love our familys we want ot protect them from thugs and criminals. We want the world to know if they invade the u.s. that every or most every white person will fight till last one of you invaders die.



You lost me with all of your machospeak, but the white supremacy speak doesn't do your cause any favours either.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Fran,

Yes we have had riots. They lasted, at most, two days. Entire city blocks were not victimized. Livlihoods were not destroyed. Very few died. NO homes were attacked.

The reason for this is that even in the frenzy of mob mentality, no one wants to get shot over looting a TV.

As for your idea that it is your culture that will not go down our path, I highly agree. Britain has almost always tried to disarm whatever populace it ruled. It is the only way it could maintain power. Now that you are down to just ruling yourselves, the governmemt has systematically disarmed your nation. I'll take a few more deaths (paltry low number even still) for more freedom and a government who has to fear its populace just a wee bit.

Pasa

[Katja]

I have no real wish to enter this debate about firearms but if I may pick up one thing you have said, Pasadena.

This country is not armed in the manner of the United States because British people do not believe it to be in it's interests. If they did, it would happen relatively quickly. Within a very few years. Governments in this country do try to control people, and try to control by fear to a large extent. But governments in this country are scared stiff of the population at large which is why they are often so opportunistic. It is certainly why they promise so much as we approach elections. It is why they always use the government machine to discredit opponents and prevent real democracy from ever rearing its ugly head in this country.

Your government is little different, but it is not that Americans have the right to bear arms that instills fear into them, but fear of loss of office and the trappings of power which goes with it. US governments fear as does the government of every democratic nation.

Whether or not this country is safer by having more lax gun laws is moot. We do not know for sure, just as the United States does not know whether it would be a safer place if it fell more into line with this country. But whether or not people carry guns and whether or not we arm the police, Governments fear their people. They often themselves get away with murder, but there is only so far they can push their people. The day comes eventually when by ballot, by bullet or by public disorder, governments fear of their people is realised.

Our countries in one way or other have a democratic process to prevent it being necessary for citizens to rise up in revolution to bring a government to heel. It exists to meet the needs of the people, in theory if not in deed. You may have insufficient belief in your political system and government to feel it necessary to arm yourself but while I may not have the greatest of faith in the system or government of this country, I do in the people and in this country because when galvinised on the right issue and cause, they have shown a remarkable ability to get things changed without the need for guns.

It is quite possible that in time things will change in that regard, but for now we are nowhere near that juncture.

[jamieknyc]

The US is not so very different from this country in that many of its inner cities are rotten with violence and are very dangerous places.. that doesnt stop me visiting friends and family and staying when invited, drinking in the local pubs with those people and their friends and having a jolly time, going to working men's clubs, local dances, parties and other late night events... the threat of violence is never far away and gun crime, if much more rare, is always a possibility... Jamie.. scoff all u like.. hating guns and violence, loathing aspects of our society which should not be, does not make me run from them or avoid areas where I have reason to visit. U picked the wrong girl to make that accusation to.....

Anyone you are likely to know is not going to be living in places like Newark, New Jersey or East New York, Fran.

[niftyshellshock]

"hating guns"

Hating guns means you are happy to be a good slave. It means you could give a shit. You will not protect your family or island.

We here or the many of the white people here well we love our familys we want ot protect them from thugs and criminals. We want the world to know if they invade the u.s. that every or most every white person will fight till last one of you invaders die.

Guns mean freedom when used right. White people came to this land to be free.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."-- Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446

If ture American's riot (revolt) with their guns no banker, gangster or blood sucking politician will be safe. Only then is there a chance for getting peoples freedom back.

I don't think you have a clue to what a dangerous city is?

By the way the Bible states because you gave up your freedom (guns) and turned against God "House of Lords" spits in Gods face.

Your island will be invaded and the living will be taken off as slaves in ships more than likely by the Russians and Chinese.

You gave up your freedom and the invaders will murder most of you quick.

We in the u.s. have near the same future but for now we have our guns and can at least fight back.

Senator Storm Thurmond? Is that you? Back fronm the dead?

[darkeyes]

Anyone you are likely to know is not going to be living in places like Newark, New Jersey or East New York, Fran.

Nope they're not.. cums wiv not livin on ur side a the pond methinks...

..went 2 school wiv a girl who lives in Seattle.. she sez its easy peasy ther.. not much tuff. An me sisters m8 know her an she lives in Chicago.. bitsa tuff there.. she's been mugged a cuppla times..

... for God's sake Jamie.. this isn't a competition on who has the most dangerous place on the planet.. grow up...

[love1234]

You lost me with all of your machospeak, but the white supremacy speak doesn't do your cause any favours either.

I said nothing about White Supremacy.

This nation was founded by God fearing, God believing, Bible reading common white people. They froze, they bled, they starved, they fought for freedom and they risked everything to be a free people.

[love1234]

..and u are talking through ur arse an all...

No I'm not. If you want to be good slave thats fine.

If you do not want to protect your family from evil criminals that is fine. Just sit and watch as they are murdered, robbed and raped.

I'm sure you are smarted than all these people.

”The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”
~James Earl Jones

”A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
~Sigmund Freud

“There’s no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”
~Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky

”By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
~John F. Kennedy

.”Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.”
~John Locke

”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany


.”And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
~Thomas Jefferson

.”The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
~Patrick Henry

”You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.”
~Niccolo Machiavelli

”The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the ‘government’, not to ’society’; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”
~Joel Barlow

.”Self defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges everyone … to resist the first approaches of tyranny.”
~Elbridge Gerry

.”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”
~Noah Webster

.”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.”
~Adolph Hitler

.”There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period.”
~Ted Nugent

”You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
~Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler

”The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
~Wayne LaPierre

”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.”
~Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

”Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.”
~Unknown

[darkeyes]

*laughs*

Just because I am a pacifist, hate weapons and violence of any kind, live my life to do what I can to eliminate both, doesn't make me a slave. On the contrary, I am more free than most because I have a freedom of thought which goes far beyond the bounds of that which restricts and restrains humankind from progressing onto a better way... it is those who preach that things can never change who are enslaved... those wedded to the idea that things are more important than life...

I have argued non violence all my adult life. I do not argue with the qualification of many.. I will not take the life or harm another in defence of my own or of anything I have. This does not mean I will not fight in my own way for the preservation of my own life, the lives of others or things which are mine. It does mean that they are less important to me than the principle of human peace and the lives of others.. even others who wish me harm.

Having such a principle gives me some real soul searching when I consider those I love do not doubt... it is a conundrum which I will never quite find an answer to until such times as those I love best are under threat.. but I like to think that somehow I can overcome any threat by means other than violence... only events should they ever arise will answer that conundrum.. I am human.. as flawed as any other and full of human emotion and instinct like any other..

Not wanting to have the right to carry firearms or weapons of any kind does not make me a slave nor does it anyone else as long as we have that most important of freedoms.. the freedom to think... only death can take that from me, and in one way or another, peacefully or not, it comes to us all...

[tenni]

re post 50

I suppose if people gather and repeat these quotes often enough they begin to sound believable. It is kind of like the British rioters. It made sense to them while they looted and burned. A few days later they don't even know why they did it. I wonder when the day will come when posts like #50 won't make sense to some of you. It sure as fuck sounds crazy to me.(sorry but it is frightening thinking)

[darkeyes]

I agree with you, Tenni, for once without any reservation. Both you and I could rake up as many quotes challenging those above, and they would be just as valid. It is crazy, but then we live in a crazy world... ome of us want to change that and make just a little less crazy. Raking up quotes trying to prove failed old remedies proves nothing.

Love1234 a few posts ago threw at me something of the Bible. Jesus came to earth to save mankind we are told.. yet he knew that to do so there would have to be a great change in the hearts and minds of men... I know this and am no Christian, but it is why I live as I do believing what I do. I will never have anything like the influence of Christ, and may not believe in him being the son of God, but both new testament and what Christ the man is supposed to have preached have influenced me more than I sometimes acknowledge. My love of pacifism, peace, non violence and of my fellow humanity as well as the world we live in comes primarily from four sources. My Grandfather's belief in Christ, my father's humanity and the socialism of not Karl Marx, but Kier Hardie... all were heavily influenced by Christ. Not by Christianity.. it is debatable just how much of that is influenced by Christ.

[jamieknyc]

“There’s no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”
~Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky


I think I am the only person in this thread with any direct personal experience of Israel. Israel has very strict gun control laws, with stiff jail sentences for violators.

[void()]

I said nothing about White Supremacy.

This nation was founded by God fearing, God believing, Bible reading common white people. They froze, they bled, they starved, they fought for freedom and they risked everything to be a free people.

You really ought to read up on your history. Not all of our Founding Fathers were good little Christian soldiers. Thomas Jefferson for one is believed to have been an atheist, Washington was a deist believing only in a god of Nature. Other prominent founders were Pagans, Masons, Jews, Hermetic, heck a few may have been Hindi or Taoist.

One of the main points of government here in the U.S. has been a sacred protection of the right to worship freely as one chooses, it was in fact listed among reasons for revolt against England. Although, there are times I ponder why we did not revolt from Spain. Columbus was here on Spain's behalf originally.

So, take your full of manure, white supremacy, christian, red-neck, back watered, benighted, hate filled rhetoric and blow it where the sun don't shine. This country is not completely a Christian nation. Further, try looking up the Treaty of Tripoli, it has words regarding our nation and religion from then President, John Adams. People like you make me glad I can bear arms, despite slaughtering of stupid people being illegal.

Fran, you likely would be safe in WV even though most of us hillbillies do grow up on guns. We are taught responsibility in the use of tools, ultimately guns are tools. And I don't think it wise to blame tools for errors of the artisan. It sounds as though Her Majesty's government has been crafting this out for some time. I've read of the M units being trained for 'kettling' of folks for at least the past five years. Only makes sense if you push against bees, someone will get stung.

I do not condone the rioters, though. Yes there are reasons to make stands, no doubt. But merely to loot and trash fellow mankind are not good reasons. It makes you the same as the oppressors you lash out against. As Disraeli said quite eloquently, "Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely so."

I concur with Neil Pert of Rush fame. We must learn to unite Reason and Love, creating a Perfect Sphere.

[jamieknyc]

Deists weren't exactly atheists. Deists believed in God, but did not believe that God directed events on earth by divine command.

Washignton, Jefferson and most of the other Founding Fathers weren't for the most part especially religious men, but all Americans in that age were at least professing Christians, apart from about 2,500 Jews. Outright atheism was rare in that age.

[slipnslide]

Windsor Ontario credits their 22 month run without a homicide partly on getting guns off the streets - and they're across the river from Detroit!

Windsor homicide-free for 22 months (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2011/08/12/wdr-homicide-free.html)

Our overall crime rate is at it's lowest since 1973. We also don't perpetuate the falsehood that we all need guns to protect ourselves from the government - mostly since we are the government. It's interesting that in the the US the citizens fear their government and feel they need weapons to protect themselves, yet up here the government fears us.

[jamieknyc]

Windsor Ontario credits their 22 month run without a homicide partly on getting guns off the streets - and they're across the river from Detroit!

Windsor homicide-free for 22 months (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2011/08/12/wdr-homicide-free.html)

Our overall crime rate is at it's lowest since 1973. We also don't perpetuate the falsehood that we all need guns to protect ourselves from the government - mostly since we are the government. It's interesting that in the the US the citizens fear their government and feel they need weapons to protect themselves, yet up here the government fears us.

The only Americans who have serious fear of of government authority (as opposed to made-up 'fear' for ideological reasons) are inner-city blacks, who believe that the police and the courts treat them unfairly. Few of those carry guns, though, and the ones who do usually belong to the criminal element and avoid the police.

The Second Amendment does not allow someone to use guns to resist the authority of the government. Whatt he Founding Fathers had in mind was something like Israel, where soldiers on reserve duty are allowed to keep their rifles at home so army reserve units can be called up within twenty-four hours.

[jamieknyc]

And in other news, Iran has offered to send militiamen to restore peace in London. British girls, keep your chadors close at hand!

[darkeyes]

:tong:
You really ought to read up on your history. Not all of our Founding Fathers were good little Christian soldiers. Thomas Jefferson for one is believed to have been an atheist, Washington was a deist believing only in a god of Nature. Other prominent founders were Pagans, Masons, Jews, Hermetic, heck a few may have been Hindi or Taoist.

One of the main points of government here in the U.S. has been a sacred protection of the right to worship freely as one chooses, it was in fact listed among reasons for revolt against England. Although, there are times I ponder why we did not revolt from Spain. Columbus was here on Spain's behalf originally.

So, take your full of manure, white supremacy, christian, red-neck, back watered, benighted, hate filled rhetoric and blow it where the sun don't shine. This country is not completely a Christian nation. Further, try looking up the Treaty of Tripoli, it has words regarding our nation and religion from then President, John Adams. People like you make me glad I can bear arms, despite slaughtering of stupid people being illegal.

Fran, you likely would be safe in WV even though most of us hillbillies do grow up on guns. We are taught responsibility in the use of tools, ultimately guns are tools. And I don't think it wise to blame tools for errors of the artisan. It sounds as though Her Majesty's government has been crafting this out for some time. I've read of the M units being trained for 'kettling' of folks for at least the past five years. Only makes sense if you push against bees, someone will get stung.

I do not condone the rioters, though. Yes there are reasons to make stands, no doubt. But merely to loot and trash fellow mankind are not good reasons. It makes you the same as the oppressors you lash out against. As Disraeli said quite eloquently, "Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely so."

I concur with Neil Pert of Rush fame. We must learn to unite Reason and Love, creating a Perfect Sphere.

I noticed the white supremacy hint Voidie... even tho he denied it it was there plain for all to see... why mention white at all? Save to infer what we both think he did...

..I never have been afraid of guns Voidie.. peeps with guns are a whole different ball game.. I am shit scared of being in the proximity of anyone I don't know with a guns, and wary of anyone I do.. accidents do happen.... but I was brought up with guns, taught to shoot and went hunting deer, rabbits, grouse, pheasants, hares and pigeons with my dad who taught me to shoot and how to be responsible with a gun. My exhusband is a countryman and was a great man for his guns and guns and sport. The men in my fathers family are mostly sporting gunmen, and they go shooting as they were taught at their fathers' knees. So I know guns Voidie. I don't cower from them as some appear to think. But I have seen the damage they can do, and the agonies they can cause.

I know that in vast tracks of the US I would be as safe as anywhere in my own country. I have often joked I'd never go as long as America has its love affair with guns and but I have been to countries where police and even traffic wardens and other minor authority figures routinely carry guns. I have been faced with both police and soldiers with guns on demonstrations both here but more so in Europe and even US air force personnel on demonstrations outside of US air bases when I was little. Because I fear what guns can do, or more accurately what people can do with guns, does not stop me living my life and going to places where they may be pointed in my direction, which is a common misconception many have about me...

..the riots were stupid and insane. People have died and been ruined. Many people who ordinarily would have known better were caught up in a frenzy of madness. This was no political protest and had no agenda save greed and blind selfishness. Those who are already trying to find deeper meaning to it all are quite right, for there must be. Has to be. I don't excuse the looters in any way, but of one thing I am sure. There is blame than other just on their doorstep alone. And I am not alone on thinking that either....

Another thing I am equally sure of... thank fuck we do not have the right to bear arms, or that the British police service is armed as a matter of routine... contrary to what some have said, had they been so, I am quite sure things would have been far far worse...

Disraeli was right, and so was Neil Pert. I live a life based almost entirely on reason. I have emotions like anyone else but try to keep the negative emotions within me in check sadly not always with 100% success.. we are told that we should reason and people tell us that they use reason.. unfortunately some lie, some do not use it enough, some only when they want to and some turn it round to suit their own purposes for their own selfish gains. We arent taught how to use our reason. I'm not sure whether it is something that can be taught.. certainly not to everyone.. for too many are incapable of reason.. not because they were not born with the capacity to reason.. but because the world they live inand those they are surrounded by deprives them of it...

.. now if u excuse me Voidie babes... I have to go and fiddle while Rome burns.. and then get tarted up for my Friday night wild time... and God help the buggers if they kick off in my town tonight.. I will not be best pleased... Fran's reason could well escape her... not on 'er nite out...tee hee

[jamieknyc]

Things seem to be quieting down, so hopefully Fran won't have her Friday-night entertainment interrupted by any rioting 'buggers.'

I don't think we succeeded in explaining to Fran that most American cops have never fired their weapons in their entire career on the force, that demonstrations rarely lead to violence, and that people who make a lot of gun-owner rhetoric are full of big talk but have usually never fired a gun in anger.

[darkeyes]

The only Americans who have serious fear of of government authority (as opposed to made-up 'fear' for ideological reasons) are inner-city blacks, who believe that the police and the courts treat them unfairly. Few of those carry guns, though, and the ones who do usually belong to the criminal element and avoid the police.

The Second Amendment does not allow someone to use guns to resist the authority of the government. Whatt he Founding Fathers had in mind was something like Israel, where soldiers on reserve duty are allowed to keep their rifles at home so army reserve units can be called up within twenty-four hours.

A government should not fear its people nor a people its government.. Governments which fear their citizens all too easily become dictatorships and responsible for the suppression of the rights and liberties of their people. People who fear their government have the right to elect one it does not or to rise up and overthrow it through a programme of civil disobedience and replace it with one from which it need not fear.

[darkeyes]

Things seem to be quieting down, so hopefully Fran won't have her Friday-night entertainment interrupted by any rioting 'buggers.'

I don't think we succeeded in explaining to Fran that most American cops have never fired their weapons in their entire career on the force, that demonstrations rarely lead to violence, and that people who make a lot of gun-owner rhetoric are full of big talk but have usually never fired a gun in anger.

Actually Jamie, I do accept that... but my point is not that but the fact that police and people carrying firearms is necessary at all...

.. an they riot 'ere tonite and Fran will do 'er nut....!!!!

[Pasadenacpl2]

A government should not fear its people nor a people its government.. Governments which fear their citizens all too easily become dictatorships and responsible for the suppression of the rights and liberties of their people. People who fear their government have the right to elect one it does not or to rise up and overthrow it through a programme of civil disobedience and replace it with one from which it need not fear.


Our history tells us that civil disobedience is not the way to overthrow a government. Especially when the government is armed. We took this nation by force from an oppressing government. We didn't do it with protests and rallies.

I understand pacifism for you as an individual. I do not understand the desire to take away the right to choose from others. The right to keep and bear arms is a human right. It is one that governments take away when they, as you said, fear theor own peoole. So much sadder when you support your government in this. But the British government has a ling standing tradition of taking away anything from its people that it feels empowers them. Look at the serious contemplation given by your PM to shutting down facebook. We saw dictatorships do that very same thing in the middle east.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

Our history tells us that civil disobedience is not the way to overthrow a government. Especially when the government is armed. We took this nation by force from an oppressing government. We didn't do it with protests and rallies.

I understand pacifism for you as an individual. I do not understand the desire to take away the right to choose from others. The right to keep and bear arms is a human right. It is one that governments take away when they, as you said, fear theor own peoole. So much sadder when you support your government in this. But the British government has a ling standing tradition of taking away anything from its people that it feels empowers them. Look at the serious contemplation given by your PM to shutting down facebook. We saw dictatorships do that very same thing in the middle east.

Pasa

You are like many others Pasa.. u think because I argue for something that I wish to remove from them what they believe to be their rights no matter what.. this is not so... I argue and stand where I do on things because I wish to PERSUADE others to the rightness of my cause.. PERSUADE them to voluntarily surrender what in my opinion is wrong... to get on my side a sufficient MAJORITY to enable that to be enacted.. that is DEMOCRACY and how in theory both our countries are supposed to work... that there will be an element of forcible withdrawal of approval for things which all of us believe at some time or other is a fundamental necessity if we live in and support the democratic ideal. If we are in the minority and cannot persuade sufficent people to our view then we lose, and if we succeed then we win.. THAT is democracy and THAT is what I believe in..

I am sorry Pasa, but I dont have time to respond to your other points cos I'm running late now, but regarding Cameron and his stupid idea about Facebook, Twitter et al I agree with you... we have debated revolution and civil disobedience in the past... fundamental change has resulted from both in many countries and will do so again.. u know where my preference lies.. I have said it often enough.. best I can do for now, Pasa... u want more u will havta wait...

[void()]

"I don't cower from them as some appear to think. But I have seen the damage they can do, and the agonies they can cause."

Didn't think you did cower, love. I too have seen damages caused by guns. Concur with you about only soldiers and police having arms to brandish over people. To me that is abuse of power and suspension of law, basically "he who has the gun, is the law." Might does not always equate to right.

One instance of a gun causing trouble/s here. A fellow rarely drank a few pints. He was a moderate bloke, until a tumor came to play. As chance had it, he got a bit pissed one weekend out at a mate's home. When he returned to his home, he beat his wife. His teenage son witnessed this. Not to displace nor condone his abuse, but it was observed the combination of tumor and booze caused the episode.

At any given he told his son if he was ever acting out like that again, the son was to shoot him. The son did just that about two months later.

[tenni]

One thing that I find interesting and positive is the consequences that are impacting the younger rioters. The young woman who was to be an ambassador for the Olympics being turned in by her own parents is interesting. I read something about the Vancouver riots after losing the Stanley Cup. There was a young man who was caught on video who was an Olympic contender for 2012 in London. There was a petition started on youtube to have him banned from being an Olympic athlete. It looks like he has ruined his chances as the Olympic committee has banned him from participating.

Kids the age of 12 though are disturbing. The crowd psychology has come in to play. Bad decisions by young people has led them to some sad consequences but it is best that they learn. I hope that they learn and it is a positively learning experience rather than increase their tendency to damage other people's property disrespectfully.

[darkeyes]

..kno things have quietened down..apart from the banging in me head..but that's a self inflicted civil disturbance.. spotted this which I found interesting.. have a look see cos it this is a young guy we should listen to... and we iggie at our peril... his final paragraph should put the fear of God into politicians an polis alike.. not to mention peeps like me an thee fellow brits...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/12/riot-predict-trouble-not-over

An dicks like this doesn't help matters either.. didnt see it cos was out self inflictin those civil disturbances, but will bring him up on the iplayer later... have always found Starkey interesting as an historian an controversial... spesh when he said Scotland was irrelevant in British political an historical terms an only England matters... so he has a track record of upsetting peeps..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-black

[sammie19]

..kno things have quietened down..apart from the banging in me head..but that's a self inflicted civil disturbance..

You and me both, Fran. And a worse one in my tummy. :( But the night was riot in its own way wasn't it?:tong:

[darkeyes]

Don't type so loud girl.. me bonce has still got a lil man in it wiv a sledgehammer an if me gets me hands on that gett wiv the pneumatic drill will shove it wer the sun dont shine......

.. but more seriously.. peeps may not agree but the leader in 2days Independent kinda puts things int2 perspective.. it answers bugger all, but it does show that bad as things are.. socially things arent as bad as they were...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-liberalism-has-improved-britain-ndash-its-defenders-must-speak-up-2336897.html

[darkeyes]

Our history tells us that civil disobedience is not the way to overthrow a government. Especially when the government is armed. We took this nation by force from an oppressing government. We didn't do it with protests and rallies.

Pasa

Your history tells u know such thing. You may never have had a civil disobedience campaign amied at bringing down a government, but you have had at least one aimed at changing how government works and thinks.. the civil rights campaign.. and we can never know just how, had that and many other incidents of civil disobedience not evolved into armed struggle how it would have ended. We know what history tells us, but we can never know how your country would have been had it taken a more peaceful course to achieve the dreams and aspirations of its people..

Civil disobedience is not just protests and rallies Pasa. It is the masses acting in such a way to make things impossible or at least so very difficult for government to work effectively. Strikes, occupations of government buildings and installations, and occupying the government and police, even the armed forces to such a degree that it finds it impossible to function. It involves a minimum of violence, sometimes even none unless the government decides to get heavy which often the way of things such as Bahrain and Syria and dozens of other places, but it has a pretty good track record of success in many countries from Portugal and the eastern European countries to India, to Argentina, South Africa and even poor old blighty in the 1970s. And of course, Tunisia and Egypt. Civil disobedience can and does affect elections in democratic countries even several years after the event.

Civil disobedience actually does have an honourable place in your history too even aside from the civil rights campaign. What else was the chucking of all that tea into the sea at Boston? The American revolution may have been an armed one but it didn't start off as that... sometimes civil disobedience does go sour and governments fail to see the writing on the wall and make a bollox of it. Most civil disobedience has more limited objectives than the downfall of a government..what else is a strike at say General Motors or Chrysler or in a Heinz Baked Beans factory or a student occupation of a campus??? But whether great or small, civil disobedience campaigns are infinitely preferable to the alternative... sometimes unfortunately they do evolve into the alternative with all the consequent mayhem and slaughter.. but not always.. by no means always....

.. so don't look down your nose at civil disobedience as an effective way to achieve change.. it can be and is often as, and more effective than picking up a gun and engaging in mass slaughter.. and it doesnt leave quite the sectarian trail of bitterness in the aftermath in both victor and vanquished and the likelihood of renewed struggle at a later time...

I very much doubt that the US government is afraid of you and your little pop guns. Nor is it afraid of all the various progun lobbies and cranky nutters who live in the backwoods ranting about government and arming themselves to the teeth for doomsday. You and they are unimportant to them and not to be feared.. the US government is shit scared of civil disobedience far more than ever it is about your little arsenals because of what it means to your economy, social cohesion and the infrastructure of the country. You can claim it fears you but it doesn't.. not one bit.. more it laughs at your little games and little rants because it knows that it has nothing to fear.

The most likely scenario of any rising against your dont forget ARMED government, is that for every one of you with a gun who would rise against it there would be another with a gun who would side with it... and Americans like the British have known civil war and know there is nothing more destructive and divisive and ruinous... and they will not countenance civil war.. both our Governments know that and so what is it they fear precisiely?

[darkeyes]

Your history tells u know such thing.

Wotta dimwit..500 lines for lack of care......:rolleyes:

[void()]

Re: First link in post #68

"It doesn't justify it but they think: 'I ain't got no money for this, I ain't got no money for that, I can't get a job but I need it.' The only way they are going to get it is stealing. They are going to be ruthless and do anything they can to get it. This was fun for them."

Les Mis up and down. Hugo was an excellent read, and reader.

And yes, I would steal a loaf of bread to feed family if need be. I will hunt with no government sponsored license, fish the same, if it means surviving. I'll distill medicinal herbs, grow garden, build stone root cellar, log home and so on if needed. First stop, local library and a set of books called The Foxfire Series. Good old hill billy lore, practicality in readable form. Read much of these books before, but always nice to have a reference handy.

We're in West Virginia now. We can smell and see you ten miles out, take care of our own.

[love1234]

You really ought to read up on your history. Not all of our Founding Fathers were good little Christian soldiers. Thomas Jefferson for one is believed to have been an atheist, Washington was a deist believing only in a god of Nature. Other prominent founders were Pagans, Masons, Jews, Hermetic, heck a few may have been Hindi or Taoist.

One of the main points of government here in the U.S. has been a sacred protection of the right to worship freely as one chooses, it was in fact listed among reasons for revolt against England. Although, there are times I ponder why we did not revolt from Spain. Columbus was here on Spain's behalf originally.

So, take your full of manure, white supremacy, christian, red-neck, back watered, benighted, hate filled rhetoric and blow it where the sun don't shine. This country is not completely a Christian nation. Further, try looking up the Treaty of Tripoli, it has words regarding our nation and religion from then President, John Adams. People like you make me glad I can bear arms, despite slaughtering of stupid people being illegal.

Fran, you likely would be safe in WV even though most of us hillbillies do grow up on guns. We are taught responsibility in the use of tools, ultimately guns are tools. And I don't think it wise to blame tools for errors of the artisan. It sounds as though Her Majesty's government has been crafting this out for some time. I've read of the M units being trained for 'kettling' of folks for at least the past five years. Only makes sense if you push against bees, someone will get stung.

I do not condone the rioters, though. Yes there are reasons to make stands, no doubt. But merely to loot and trash fellow mankind are not good reasons. It makes you the same as the oppressors you lash out against. As Disraeli said quite eloquently, "Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely so."

I concur with Neil Pert of Rush fame. We must learn to unite Reason and Love, creating a Perfect Sphere.
I never said the elites who sold the common man out were Bible believing Followers of God and His Bible.

[love1234]

Actually Jamie, I do accept that... but my point is not that but the fact that police and people carrying firearms is necessary at all...

.. an they riot 'ere tonite and Fran will do 'er nut....!!!!

History tells us unarmed people get slaughtered.

[love1234]

Your history tells u know such thing. You may never have had a civil disobedience campaign amied at bringing down a government, but you have had at least one aimed at changing how government works and thinks.. the civil rights campaign.. and we can never know just how, had that and many other incidents of civil disobedience not evolved into armed struggle how it would have ended. We know what history tells us, but we can never know how your country would have been had it taken a more peaceful course to achieve the dreams and aspirations of its people..

Civil disobedience is not just protests and rallies Pasa. It is the masses acting in such a way to make things impossible or at least so very difficult for government to work effectively. Strikes, occupations of government buildings and installations, and occupying the government and police, even the armed forces to such a degree that it finds it impossible to function. It involves a minimum of violence, sometimes even none unless the government decides to get heavy which often the way of things such as Bahrain and Syria and dozens of other places, but it has a pretty good track record of success in many countries from Portugal and the eastern European countries to India, to Argentina, South Africa and even poor old blighty in the 1970s. And of course, Tunisia and Egypt. Civil disobedience can and does affect elections in democratic countries even several years after the event.

Civil disobedience actually does have an honourable place in your history too even aside from the civil rights campaign. What else was the chucking of all that tea into the sea at Boston? The American revolution may have been an armed one but it didn't start off as that... sometimes civil disobedience does go sour and governments fail to see the writing on the wall and make a bollox of it. Most civil disobedience has more limited objectives than the downfall of a government..what else is a strike at say General Motors or Chrysler or in a Heinz Baked Beans factory or a student occupation of a campus??? But whether great or small, civil disobedience campaigns are infinitely preferable to the alternative... sometimes unfortunately they do evolve into the alternative with all the consequent mayhem and slaughter.. but not always.. by no means always....

.. so don't look down your nose at civil disobedience as an effective way to achieve change.. it can be and is often as, and more effective than picking up a gun and engaging in mass slaughter.. and it doesnt leave quite the sectarian trail of bitterness in the aftermath in both victor and vanquished and the likelihood of renewed struggle at a later time...

I very much doubt that the US government is afraid of you and your little pop guns. Nor is it afraid of all the various progun lobbies and cranky nutters who live in the backwoods ranting about government and arming themselves to the teeth for doomsday. You and they are unimportant to them and not to be feared.. the US government is shit scared of civil disobedience far more than ever it is about your little arsenals because of what it means to your economy, social cohesion and the infrastructure of the country. You can claim it fears you but it doesn't.. not one bit.. more it laughs at your little games and little rants because it knows that it has nothing to fear.

The most likely scenario of any rising against your dont forget ARMED government, is that for every one of you with a gun who would rise against it there would be another with a gun who would side with it... and Americans like the British have known civil war and know there is nothing more destructive and divisive and ruinous... and they will not countenance civil war.. both our Governments know that and so what is it they fear precisiely?

The politicians (bloodsuckers) are very scared of the people just not scared enough yet.

This is why they will try to get the people going after each other. Blacks after white and whites after black and blacks against Mexicans on and on.

So far I do believe that all the riots around the world have been staged by the elite scum.

[darkeyes]

The politicians (bloodsuckers) are very scared of the people just not scared enough yet.

This is why they will try to get the people going after each other. Blacks after white and whites after black and blacks against Mexicans on and on.

So far I do believe that all the riots around the world have been staged by the elite scum.

In many countries hun u are right they are.. in the UK and US... naaaa.. not really.. why else do they treat us with such contempt at times? But we deal with contempt mainly at the ballot box.. sometimes with riots and civil protest and disobedience.. not generally by revolution..

..an have been accused of sufferin from neuroses and paranoia many times... but the elite behind every riot on the planet? Dont be daft...

..and tyvm.. when u copied me post I noticed a glaring error in the fist para which I havta correct.. 3rd line 3rd word.. the word "not".. delete it willya?

[void()]

Your words:

"This nation was founded by God fearing, God believing, Bible reading common white people. They froze, they bled, they starved, they fought for freedom and they risked everything to be a free people."


Gee, sure sounds like you said they were good little Bible toting christian soldiers. Of course, I've been known to misread the written word. How about we both rethink what you said, consider the actual intent, and what came over the transom.

Your words again:

"History tells us unarmed people get slaughtered."

Yes, while history may indeed show many instances of unarmed being slaughtered, it also shows other instances as well. One prime example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi). And the riots in England, also provided another. Yes there were causalities but not as many to warrant unarmed masses being 'slaughtered'. Sit-ins held in the sixties here in the U.S. also did not result in throngs of people being slaughtered. There was also The Million Man March, which did not incur wholesale slaughter. So, while I can agree that sometimes you're statement is correct, I can also agree it is not always correct. And guess what? It only takes one fly in the ointment to ruin the whole batch.

[jamieknyc]

Actually Jamie, I do accept that... but my point is not that but the fact that police and people carrying firearms is necessary at all...

.. an they riot 'ere tonite and Fran will do 'er nut....!!!!

The fact that British police don't carry guns doesn't prevent widespread police brutality in the UK.

[jamieknyc]

One thing that I find interesting and positive is the consequences that are impacting the younger rioters. The young woman who was to be an ambassador for the Olympics being turned in by her own parents is interesting. I read something about the Vancouver riots after losing the Stanley Cup. There was a young man who was caught on video who was an Olympic contender for 2012 in London. There was a petition started on youtube to have him banned from being an Olympic athlete. It looks like he has ruined his chances as the Olympic committee has banned him from participating.

Kids the age of 12 though are disturbing. The crowd psychology has come in to play. Bad decisions by young people has led them to some sad consequences but it is best that they learn. I hope that they learn and it is a positively learning experience rather than increase their tendency to damage other people's property disrespectfully.

Another thing that is strange, from an American point of view, is that many, or at least some, of the rioters come from the affluent middle class.

[darkeyes]

The fact that British police don't carry guns doesn't prevent widespread police brutality in the UK.

Nope.. have never said it did.. they can be as unfair, unpleasant, downright nasty, dishonest, corrupt, heavy handed an brutal as ne otha police force on the planet.. God help us if we allowed the getts to wear guns all the time as part of standard kit....

[darkeyes]

History tells us unarmed people get slaughtered.

Your bum cheeks are workin overtime.. history tells us that sometimes unarmed people get slaughtered.. history also tells us that far more often they do not..

[jamieknyc]

All that having been said, I don't know if the British posters here are representative, but the level of hysteria over these events is surprising.

[darkeyes]

All that having been said, I don't know if the British posters here are representative, but the level of hysteria over these events is surprising.

Methinks what u think of as hysteria and I do, are 2 quite different things, Jamie....;)

[jamieknyc]

Methinks what u think of as hysteria and I do, are 2 quite different things, Jamie....;)

I was only saying that some of the UK posters here have been a little over the top in their reactions

[Darkside2009]

Nope.. have never said it did.. they can be as unfair, unpleasant, downright nasty, dishonest, corrupt, heavy handed an brutal as ne otha police force on the planet.. God help us if we allowed the getts to wear guns all the time as part of standard kit....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This topic has wondered off the reservation quite a bit, but since you raised the matter, the police in Northern Ireland, which is one of the four countries comprising the UK, carry firearms as a matter of routine. They did disarm them at one stage but found they had to revert to re-arming them again.

The fact that they are armed, does not mean the country has fallen apart. Although we too have had our share of rioting in the past and no doubt will in the future. Here we use plastic bullets, tear gas and water cannon against rioters, and within the last couple of years I believe tasers were introduced for a trial.

As to the causes of the riots, people can be poor without theft and arson. I myself was raised in poverty and have never stolen in my life, rather I was taught to work hard and accrue the benefits.

Among those arrested following the riots, were a millionaire's daughter, a law student, a social worker and others who were in employment. Hardly the dispossessed and hungry masses portrayed by some.

There are those among the rioters that were recognised in the news footage by their own parents, who were so ashamed of the behaviour of their off-spring that they turned them into the police.

In many cases, no doubt, the rioters acted under peer pressure and got caught up in the impetus, they will no doubt rue their stupidity. In others, feckless parents were to blame for not supervising their children properly. In many others it was pure, criminal opportunism. Knowing the police were undermanned and over-stretched, they took full advantage, in the process, misusing social networking sites to co-ordinate their activities.

Many of you will have seen on the news, pictures of the young Malaysian student, who had his bike stolen from him by a gang of rampaging youths, who broke his jaw in the process. To compound this, others who helped him to his feet in apparent concern for his welfare, then proceeded to rifle through his back-pack, stealing his few remaining valuables whilst he was in a dazed state.

In my country, where a tradition of hospitality towards strangers is so ingrained, this caused outrage and I am glad to see that my fellow Brits rallied around and replaced the young man's belongings. To his credit, he bears no ill-will toward his attackers and wishes to continue to live in the UK to pursue his studies. I wish him well and a speedy recovery.

Apart from the number of deaths, which will cause such trauma for their families and friends, many people will have lost their jobs and homes from their businesses and houses being burned. Their cars from being hijacked and burnt out, as insurance companies usually exempt riot situations in their policies, this means the tax-payer will be left with the final bill. It is one more bill we could do without.

Those convicted of violent crimes during the riots, should upon conviction be imprisoned. Those convicted of theft should be heavily fined, where they have the means to pay it. Of those that don't have the financial means, they should face many hours of community service. Of those rioters who are too young to face the courts, their parents should bear the responsibility.

As a country and a nation, we are competing for investment, to allow such rioting to go unpunished would simply deter investors from coming here and investing their money in jobs for our people. That investment brings not only jobs, but housing, schools, hospitals, infrastructure and the dignity that having work brings to every man and women.

Rioters and their selfish stupidity must not be allowed to stand in the way of that.

[darkeyes]

Its me own fault, darkside.. I'd quite forgotten that Northern Ireland police were armed.. hadnt realised they'd been rearmed... disappointing 2 say the least... we both know the particular reasons why they were and now are again carrying firearms.. doesn't mean I like it or that I think it is justified.. but I understand it...

The rest of ur post I can go along with...but for the life of me fail to understand why government is turning its back on finding out why these events happened, and are just blaming them in criminality.. they seem to know all the answers yet have none. Sure it was criminality.. what are the underlying reasons for these outbreaks of insane stupidity?

To misquote Shakespeare... Something is rotten in the State of Britain.. its just they dont want to find out quite where the smell is coming from...

[jamieknyc]

Are the persons who were arrested likely to get severe jail terms?

[Darkside2009]

Are the persons who were arrested likely to get severe jail terms?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is unlikely Jamie, in the first instance they will go before a Magistrate,( a minor legal judge who has only power to sentence for six months maximum), any crime warranting a greater sentence has to be referred to a higher court, the Crown Court which has greater power of sentencing.

The maximum sentence here for theft is ten years, for receiving stolen goods fourteen years. Of those convicted of these sentences, they will probably get two thirds remission of sentence for good behaviour whilst inside, or for an early plea of guilty, saving the court time and money.

Although murder attracts a sentence of around fourteen years, murderers are usually released after eight or nine years.

Of course there will be other sentences for other violent crimes such as Grievous Bodily Harm, (which includes wounding) and the lesser Actual Bodily Harm, which attracts a lesser sentence. As well as penalties for rioting, arson, incitement etc.

Successive British Governments have pursued a policy of sending fewer convicted people to jail purely to save money, and with the notion that prison merely provided opportunities to learn new criminal skills. Those convicted usually receive a fine or a Community Service Order, which means they sweep streets or do work in their community unpaid as punishment.

This latter has its problems, those served with such orders have to be supervised, if they are out sweeping streets, they have to be provided with shelter if it starts to rain. Farcical, really.

They can be placed on curfew orders or probation. For the career-criminal, these are not really deterrents.

As you will no doubt be aware, the death penalty for murder was abolished here in 1964 and for treason in the 1970's, which gives you some indication where Government priorities lie.

The Government here is pursuing a policy of reducing police numbers and despite these riots have stated they will continue with that policy. This can only lead to similar riots in the future, as criminals are never slow to cease any opportunity offered them.

[jamieknyc]

Three and a half years for looting isn't a lenient sentence.

[jamieknyc]

Further to the dsame subject, I saw a news story that two men in Chester were sentenced to four years for creating a Facebook page encouraging people to riot.

[Hephaestion]

Curious thing. Since the disturbances last week, there have been numerous young men driving around as though they are invulnerable - The kind of phraseology that seems aposite is "F**k you, get out of my way". Puts one in mind of a documentary about VietNam Veterans who thought that they were invulnerable having survived conflict and so did equally stupid things.

The physical damage to property remains obvious.

The 'ordinary' people remain traumatised. There seem to be groups of young people assessing who or what is now vulnerable for burglary (seen testing doors and owner presence and in communication on their phones). As this area is much of one racial type, charitable opinion is getting scarce. Public revenge and retribution are common words.

With the information from different parts of the country, one is forced to conclude that simple protest at what may have been an illegal death was only on the minds of one group in one area. The rest were something else.

The action around here was patently nothing to do with protest, poverty or lack of opportunity. It focussed on free shopping with laptops on sale for £20. Perhaps the examples set by bankers and MP's had some draw.

In reports, one raid on a chemist revealed a preference for a diarrhea remedy. Maybe Montezuma's Revenge had already taken hold?


.

[Darkside2009]

Further to the dsame subject, I saw a news story that two men in Chester were sentenced to four years for creating a Facebook page encouraging people to riot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I mentioned in my previous post, they will not actually serve the full term of their sentences. Remission of a third off their sentence is pretty much guaranteed.

You might not think a sentence of two and a half years is lenient, I would disagree. When the remission they receive is taken into account, I think the sentence is inadequate. Remember these owners and employees have to get the business up and running again, records may well have been damaged by fire. Not to mention the trauma suffered by the owners and their employees.

Many businesses may already be operating on a close margin, the owners might well decide to just accept the compensation and retire, the employees would lose their jobs, it all has a knock-on affect.

Similarly, those elderly people who felt trapped and isolated in their homes by these mobs running rampage. How do you quantify the fear and panic they must have felt whilst all this was going on? But Hell! no one gives them a thought, it's all what drove the poor rioters to it. Frankly, in my opinion they deserve everything the law can throw at them.

If the Government persists in this policy of reducing police numbers, I have no doubt in my mind it will lead to groups of vigilantes banding together to try and protect their own areas. This has its own inherent dangers, these groups can be usurped by criminal elements who go on to use these groups as cover for extorting money from businesses and residents. When they get a taste for the money, the drug-dealing and prostitution soon follow.

So I hope the Government are just Grand-standing on this policy of police reduction, not wanting to be seen to dance to the tune of the rioters. In two or three weeks when the immediate furore has diminished I expect the avowed policy to be reversed.

[darkeyes]

Remission is not pretty much guaranteed at all, Darkside.. that depends on the behaviour of the convicted while in clink... it also depends on the attitudes of the government of the day... and the honesty ond decency of the prison staff..

In the instance Jamie refers to, they incited riot, but riot did not occur... I think 4 years for that is an inordinately severe sentence...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed

I am not one as you might expect for draconian sentencing. What is draconian and what is firm and fair is a personal view to all of us.... I very much doubt that we would ever come to an agreement on that you and I. Sending people to jail is not always the best way to punish, and unlike you, I do not see community service as an easy option... it is a way to punish those found guilty of less serious crimes which is not the easy way out you claim it to be.

The problems of our society will not be solved by sending ever more people to jail... they will not be solved by adding to or reducing police numbers, and will not be solved by government retreating into the shell of intolerant conservatism which it is running back to at a rate of knots.. it will not solve the problems of our society by increasing illiberalism and by, as these things always do in our society, imposing policies which will affect the poorest in our society adversely most, and make this country more, not less of a tinderbox.

Of course we have to realise that people have died, been injured, escaped death by a whisker. Homes and businesses have been destroyed. But if we were a society which cared more for people rather than property, maybe we woulld begin to avoid some of these problems. Yes these riots were appalling, and those responsible should be punished.. but punished fairly as well as severely... but by being ever more draconian and illiberal, we are likely to encourage repeats of these riots.. already people are expecting just that.. one thing which concerns me is that this increased illiberalism and intolerance will encourage greater violence on legitimate protests and demonstrations over the coming months and years...

One thing which has surprised many is that Scottish cities did not explode like those in the south. Our cities, especially Glasgow has the greatest poverty levels of any city in these Islands. It is a historical magnet for trouble and is not a place which normally sits silent by while trouble brews.. legitimate protest or just trouble for its own sake. Yet it, in common with other cities north of the border sat idly by and got on with the problems of living and such as it is, working. Surprising to some but not really when you know the place...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/16/why-didn-t-riots-reach-scotland?intcmp=239

.. but for all Glasgow and Scotland's riot silence now... the cities of this country may not always be as recession bites harder and despair sends more people into crime...

Giving people tough prison sentences and increasing illiberalism and intolerance and not recognising that we have a more fundamental problem of unfairness in our society than the government admits to will not solve the anything..rather it makes things liable to get worse not better.. more unsafe not safer... more violent not less so...it will divide this country even more than it is already by its refusal to accept that there is more here than just a problem of criminality...

[Darkside2009]

Remission is not pretty much guaranteed at all, Darkside.. that depends on the behaviour of the convicted while in clink... it also depends on the attitudes of the government of the day... and the honesty ond decency of the prison staff..

In the instance Jamie refers to, they incited riot, but riot did not occur... I think 4 years for that is an inordinately severe sentence...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls-men-jailed

I am not one as you might expect for draconian sentencing. What is draconian and what is firm and fair is a personal view to all of us.... I very much doubt that we would ever come to an agreement on that you and I. Sending people to jail is not always the best way to punish, and unlike you, I do not see community service as an easy option... it is a way to punish those found guilty of less serious crimes which is not the easy way out you claim it to be.

The problems of our society will not be solved by sending ever more people to jail... they will not be solved by adding to or reducing police numbers, and will not be solved by government retreating into the shell of intolerant conservatism which it is running back to at a rate of knots.. it will not solve the problems of our society by increasing illiberalism and by, as these things always do in our society, imposing policies which will affect the poorest in our society adversely most, and make this country more, not less of a tinderbox.

Of course we have to realise that people have died, been injured, escaped death by a whisker. Homes and businesses have been destroyed. But if we were a society which cared more for people rather than property, maybe we woulld begin to avoid some of these problems. Yes these riots were appalling, and those responsible should be punished.. but punished fairly as well as severely... but by being ever more draconian and illiberal, we are likely to encourage repeats of these riots.. already people are expecting just that.. one thing which concerns me is that this increased illiberalism and intolerance will encourage greater violence on legitimate protests and demonstrations over the coming months and years...

One thing which has surprised many is that Scottish cities did not explode like those in the south. Our cities, especially Glasgow has the greatest poverty levels of any city in these Islands. It is a historical magnet for trouble and is not a place which normally sits silent by while trouble brews.. legitimate protest or just trouble for its own sake. Yet it, in common with other cities north of the border sat idly by and got on with the problems of living and such as it is, working. Surprising to some but not really when you know the place...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/16/why-didn-t-riots-reach-scotland?intcmp=239

.. but for all Glasgow and Scotland's riot silence now... the cities of this country may not always be as recession bites harder and despair sends more people into crime...

Giving people tough prison sentences and increasing illiberalism and intolerance and not recognising that we have a more fundamental problem of unfairness in our society than the government admits to will not solve the anything..rather it makes things liable to get worse not better.. more unsafe not safer... more violent not less so...it will divide this country even more than it is already by its refusal to accept that there is more here than just a problem of criminality...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are both adults, they are responsible for their own actions. In making a decision to encourage others to break the law and put people and property at risk, they made the wrong decision. Their actions have consequences, they are suffering the consequences, I do not have one iota of sympathy for them.

They might as well have taken out a front page advert in the papers, thinking they wouldn't get caught. Dumb and Dumber will now have time to reflect on the error of trying to persuade others to break the law.

I'll wager with you, they will not serve the full four years in prison. If I am wrong, I will pay for a meal for both you and your partner at the restaurant of your choice in Edinburgh, (Excluding booze, I've heard how much you drink. lol)

If you are wrong, you can make a cheque out to the charity of my choice, for say £50-00. How say you? Are you a gambling woman?

If a certain English politician had his way we would be looking at 50% remission.

By the way, incitement to commit a crime attracts a harsher penalty precisely to deter persons using the stupid and the gullible to commit those crimes they seek to benefit from. Just as receiving stolen goods attracts a harsher penalty than actually stealing them. The logic being, if there is no market for the stolen goods, there is no point in stealing them in the first place. :)

[darkeyes]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are both adults, they are responsible for their own actions. In making a decision to encourage others to break the law and put people and property at risk, they made the wrong decision. Their actions have consequences, they are suffering the consequences, I do not have one iota of sympathy for them.

They might as well have taken out a front page advert in the papers, thinking they wouldn't get caught. Dumb and Dumber will now have time to reflect on the error of trying to persuade others to break the law.

I'll wager with you, they will not serve the full four years in prison. If I am wrong, I will pay for a meal for both you and your partner at the restaurant of your choice in Edinburgh, (Excluding booze, I've heard how much you drink. lol)

If you are wrong, you can make a cheque out to the charity of my choice, for say £50-00. How say you? Are you a gambling woman?

If a certain English politician had his way we would be looking at 50% remission.

By the way, incitement to commit a crime attracts a harsher penalty precisely to deter persons using the stupid and the gullible to commit those crimes they seek to benefit from. Just as receiving stolen goods attracts a harsher penalty than actually stealing them. The logic being, if there is no market for the stolen goods, there is no point in stealing them in the first place. :)

*Laughs* I wont take your bet, Darkside, because I know that they are less likely to serve their whole sentence than to finish it. My point isn't that it they won't get remission, but that it is not all but guaranteed... I am a great supporter of remitting sentences, especially those I find too severe. They are an important tool for keeping order in our prisons as well as encouraging inmates to screw the nut and behave themselves.

No I'm not really a gambling woman. I have seen the day however, especially when I was married... at the races.. which if memory serves me correctly is something you too have an interest in..

You are right, though... dumb and dumber about fits the bill. Not everone has quite enough marbles to avoid getting themselves grabbed by the short and curlies, and their open stupidity actually invites it, and this pair of clowns are prime examples...

The logic of which you speak vis a vis receiving and of incitement I understand and do agree with to a great extent. Although I doubt very much they are the deterrent those who frame and enforce the law claim them to be... it is more the honesty and good sense of most people that keeps them away from incitement or receiving stolen goods. Far more than fear. Hardened criminals laugh at it and don't give much of a monkey's.

Assuming you are talking of Clarke, I am actually quite glad the UK government has very limited authority over sentencing north of the border, because Clarke actually for a Tory talked a deal of good sense but his party's odious and unpleasant side is in the ascendancy. Such power that the UK government has over Edinburgh would create a constitutional crisis of mammoth proportions if they were to interfere and change or block legislation under the Scotland Act (as they are entitled to do, and as some day some government is bound to do) and play into the hands of the Nationalists who would lap it up like the starving and thirsty dogs they so often are.

Unfortunately Clarke's party, his leader and his media supporters have turned away from what I found quite interesting ideas. It is a pity the "hang 'em an bang'em up" brigade in the Tory Party have so much sway but that's the way of life in Conservative Britain.. and after the events of the last 10 days or so are likely to bay for even more blood. I expect Clarke is hiding under the stairs now, and over the next year or two we are all going to pay for his party's blood thirst.

[Darkside2009]

Darkeyes:-

'*Laughs* I wont take your bet, Darkside, because I know that they are less likely to serve their whole sentence than to finish it. '

Ya! Scardey-Ba. :bigrin:

[jamieknyc]

Making a Facebook page is not incitement to commit a crime, at least in the United States. I don't know what British law provides.

[darkeyes]

Darkeyes:-

'*Laughs* I wont take your bet, Darkside, because I know that they are less likely to serve their whole sentence than to finish it. '

Ya! Scardey-Ba. :bigrin:

*laughs*. Big Nell!

[Darkside2009]

Making a Facebook page is not incitement to commit a crime, at least in the United States. I don't know what British law provides.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would think it would depend on the contents of that Facebook site and how it was used. A page on a site can and more often is quite innocuous, but if you were to create a site, for example, inciting others to assassinate your President, I think you might find the Secret Service knocking on your door and yourself in court rather quickly.

In another Facebook case that caught my attention, a young woman took her ex-boyfriend to court to force him to remove nude pictures of her from his site and to refrain from sending copies to her parents, employer and friends. She won her case, in the process making legal history.

[Darkside2009]

Making a Facebook page is not incitement to commit a crime, at least in the United States. I don't know what British law provides.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would think it would depend on the contents of that Facebook site and how it was used. A page on a site can and more often is quite innocuous, but if you were to create a site, for example, inciting others to assassinate your President, I think you might find the Secret Service knocking on your door and yourself in court rather quickly.

In another Facebook case that caught my attention, a young woman took her ex-boyfriend to court to force him to remove nude pictures of her from his site and to refrain from sending copies to her parents, employer and friends. She won her case, in the process making legal history.

Here are details of this latter case, it might interest you:-

http://hilarycarmichael.com/news/13/86/Injunction-granted-against-Facebook/

[darkeyes]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would think it would depend on the contents of that Facebook site and how it was used. A page on a site can and more often is quite innocuous, but if you were to create a site, for example, inciting others to assassinate your President, I think you might find the Secret Service knocking on your door and yourself in court rather quickly.

In another Facebook case that caught my attention, a young woman took her ex-boyfriend to court to force him to remove nude pictures of her from his site and to refrain from sending copies to her parents, employer and friends. She won her case, in the process making legal history.

Here are details of this latter case, it might interest you:-

http://hilarycarmichael.com/news/13/86/Injunction-granted-against-Facebook/

Lil more restrained than my best friend, darkside babes.. she came back from her hols a few years ago to be besieged by phone calls and emails referring her to a link to a porn site... when she opened the link there she was in all her glory... an not just one pic either... an not dressed for goin 2 kirk...

.. not for her the niceties of the law.. instead a cast iron skillet full of sizzling sausages just about brained the xbf who had been so stupid as to post them.. daft sod for turning up 2 the barbi... he did take them off the site but u know how things are.. they will b wankin material for loadsa guys around the planet an tho no 1 has seen them since he took them down.. have no doubt that somewhere on the net.. there she will be still awesomely beautiful, but still very very unclad an provocative...

..lil word of caution 2 ne who decide it wud b nice to get their kit off an flash ther bits for the camera...:).. an another for any stupid arse that decides to post the pics without askin...;)

[chuck1124]

Now I will give you the prespective of somene that was in a riot area. The was Wilmington Delaware in 1968 (yes a long time ago). I was 17 at the time and working downtown. As the downtown areas burned, the riots did not touch the Italian neighborhood. Why? Because those folks brought out their guns, not their brooms. And I certainly did feel much much better returning to work when the National Guard was on the streets. The reason in my opinion these people riot is that they feel justified in taking what is not their's. Most have been doing so all their lives, it called "Welfare". These people on the public dole for years feel that the govenment and the "rich, elite" owe them. Its easy to burn down your house or the house of someone else, of you never worked for it. If these so called "elites" do anything, its to keep people dependent just as a drug dealer does.
By the way, when i hear of these statistics about gun related deaths in UK, so how many murders are there? Whethe you are shot or hit with a baseball bat, your just as dead.

[void()]

If the Government persists in this policy of reducing police numbers, I have no doubt in my mind it will lead to groups of vigilantes banding together to try and protect their own areas. This has its own inherent dangers, these groups can be usurped by criminal elements who go on to use these groups as cover for extorting money from businesses and residents. When they get a taste for the money, the drug-dealing and prostitution soon follow.

Granted, that is a real possibility. Another could be these vigilantes decide to follow a better policy, actually do serve and protect. People can surprise you, either way.

[sammie19]

Lil more restrained than my best friend, darkside babes.. she came back from her hols a few years ago to be besieged by phone calls and emails referring her to a link to a porn site... when she opened the link there she was in all her glory... an not just one pic either... an not dressed for goin 2 kirk...

.. not for her the niceties of the law.. instead a cast iron skillet full of sizzling sausages just about brained the xbf who had been so stupid as to post them.. daft sod for turning up 2 the barbi... he did take them off the site but u know how things are.. they will b wankin material for loadsa guys around the planet an tho no 1 has seen them since he took them down.. have no doubt that somewhere on the net.. there she will be still awesomely beautiful, but still very very unclad an provocative...

..lil word of caution 2 ne who decide it wud b nice to get their kit off an flash ther bits for the camera...:).. an another for any stupid arse that decides to post the pics without askin...;)

It just serves to prove, Aunty Flan, never cross a Craig. :bigrin: No Datty Patty, it wasn't me, so don't get your hopes up.:bigrin:

To return to the thread, my school friend got 2 months. Evidently he was caught carrying a box of Mars bars and 800 cigarettes from a shop. As if cigarettes aren't expensive if enough. He was lucky. I read in one of the newspapers that a girl got 3 months for stealing some bottled water worth £3.70. Both my friend and the girl are first offenders. Without trying to minimise the seriousness of what they did, it does seem a little harsh.

[Hephaestion]

.........he was caught carrying a box of Mars bars and 800 cigarettes from a shop. ........

A fan of the Rolling Stones?
(At the time of the arrest there was Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, some funny fags, and a curious Mars bar). An unruly MJ was then reputed to have lept naked on to the back of a policeman.

[darkeyes]

A fan of the Rolling Stones?
(At the time of the arrest there was Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, some funny fags, and a curious Mars bar). An unruly MJ was then reputed to have lept naked on to the back of a policeman.

Me dad tells that story of Donovan Leitch, Heph... but such is the fun n games in the world of music, our Mick prob did that and worse... an know the story 2 of Marianne an the Mars Bar.. used 2 think it wos bunk until I wos 'bout 15:tong:... now just dont ask... cos I''m not tellin.. just be satisfied that it had nowt 2 do wiv a Mars Bar...:tong:

[darkeyes]

It just serves to prove, Aunty Flan, never cross a Craig. :bigrin: No Datty Patty, it wasn't me, so don't get your hopes up.:bigrin:

To return to the thread, my school friend got 2 months. Evidently he was caught carrying a box of Mars bars and 800 cigarettes from a shop. As if cigarettes aren't expensive if enough. He was lucky. I read in one of the newspapers that a girl got 3 months for stealing some bottled water worth £3.70. Both my friend and the girl are first offenders. Without trying to minimise the seriousness of what they did, it does seem a little harsh.

Wud nev dream of it wee Craigie.. not in a million years... no 1 doin my head in wiv a bloody skillet... :eek:

[jamieknyc]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would think it would depend on the contents of that Facebook site and how it was used. A page on a site can and more often is quite innocuous, but if you were to create a site, for example, inciting others to assassinate your President, I think you might find the Secret Service knocking on your door and yourself in court rather quickly.

In another Facebook case that caught my attention, a young woman took her ex-boyfriend to court to force him to remove nude pictures of her from his site and to refrain from sending copies to her parents, employer and friends. She won her case, in the process making legal history.

Here are details of this latter case, it might interest you:-

http://hilarycarmichael.com/news/13/86/Injunction-granted-against-Facebook/

In American law, you can advocate criminal conduct, so long as the advocacy is done by lawful means. You cannot be charged with incitement unless there is an imminent threat of criminal activity as the result of you words, imminent being defined as done an immediate attempt to make make someone do it at the time and place of the statement. If those guys went out to the riot scene and egged the rioters on to loot and burn a store, that would be incitement. if you made a Facebook page supporting it, Facebook might remove it but the law cannot stop you from doing it.

[jamieknyc]

Now I will give you the prespective of somene that was in a riot area. The was Wilmington Delaware in 1968 (yes a long time ago). I was 17 at the time and working downtown. As the downtown areas burned, the riots did not touch the Italian neighborhood. Why? Because those folks brought out their guns, not their brooms. And I certainly did feel much much better returning to work when the National Guard was on the streets. The reason in my opinion these people riot is that they feel justified in taking what is not their's. Most have been doing so all their lives, it called "Welfare". These people on the public dole for years feel that the govenment and the "rich, elite" owe them. Its easy to burn down your house or the house of someone else, of you never worked for it. If these so called "elites" do anything, its to keep people dependent just as a drug dealer does.
By the way, when i hear of these statistics about gun related deaths in UK, so how many murders are there? Whethe you are shot or hit with a baseball bat, your just as dead.

I doubt you have any idea what ghetto dwellers think.

[BiDaveDtown]

I doubt you have any idea what ghetto dwellers think.

LOL like you somehow would know?

You're a middle class or very wealthy Islamophobe from Manhattan. :rolleyes:

[jamieknyc]

I wish I was very wealthy, and I wish I lived in Manhattan, although if it makes you happy, I was born there and lived there in my youth. I lived most of my adult life in a community that ws 20% Moslem, mostly Pakistani, and I spend a lot of time around black people, so I'm not just spouting like you are.

[Darkside2009]

In American law, you can advocate criminal conduct, so long as the advocacy is done by lawful means. You cannot be charged with incitement unless there is an imminent threat of criminal activity as the result of you words, imminent being defined as done an immediate attempt to make make someone do it at the time and place of the statement. If those guys went out to the riot scene and egged the rioters on to loot and burn a store, that would be incitement. if you made a Facebook page supporting it, Facebook might remove it but the law cannot stop you from doing it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie,

Here is the relevant English legislation for comparison:-

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/

[Darkside2009]

In American law, you can advocate criminal conduct, so long as the advocacy is done by lawful means. You cannot be charged with incitement unless there is an imminent threat of criminal activity as the result of you words, imminent being defined as done an immediate attempt to make make someone do it at the time and place of the statement. If those guys went out to the riot scene and egged the rioters on to loot and burn a store, that would be incitement. if you made a Facebook page supporting it, Facebook might remove it but the law cannot stop you from doing it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further to my previous post, and your reply, I did a little checking. Threats to the President of the United States are regarded as a Class D Felony, under United States Code Title 18, Section 871, punishable by five years prison, $250,000 fine, $100 special assessment and three years supervised release.

I've enclosed just one of the sources as there really are too many to cut and paste, but it includes relevant case law:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

So not quite the Freedom of Speech you imagined, as you can read it was based on the old British Treason Law. The case law includes at least one case of a threat made by a prisoner whilst still incarcerated, so the threat of imminence does not seem as important as you suggest, at least not with this example of your country's law.

I used this example purely as a comparison of our two country's legislation and it is not intended, nor should it be regarded, or inferred, as a threat of any kind against your President or his family.

The comparison is of merely academic interest to me. :)

[darkeyes]

Now I will give you the prespective of somene that was in a riot area. The was Wilmington Delaware in 1968 (yes a long time ago). I was 17 at the time and working downtown. As the downtown areas burned, the riots did not touch the Italian neighborhood. Why? Because those folks brought out their guns, not their brooms. And I certainly did feel much much better returning to work when the National Guard was on the streets. The reason in my opinion these people riot is that they feel justified in taking what is not their's. Most have been doing so all their lives, it called "Welfare". These people on the public dole for years feel that the govenment and the "rich, elite" owe them. Its easy to burn down your house or the house of someone else, of you never worked for it. If these so called "elites" do anything, its to keep people dependent just as a drug dealer does.
By the way, when i hear of these statistics about gun related deaths in UK, so how many murders are there? Whethe you are shot or hit with a baseball bat, your just as dead.

When a society fails to solve the problems of unemployment, poverty, deprivation and despair, and huge numbers of people feel they have no place in their society and no future, it is not surprising that they get a bit uppity and do things which most of us would never dream of doing...you have a point on keeping people dependent on welfare.. but since the 1960s, as the days of full employment disappeared and we saw levels of unemployment rocket to levels not seen since the 1930s, government's have singularly failed to answer the questions of unemplyment and welfare.

Welfare is supposed to be a way of helping those who are most in need. It is right that a society which is humane and compassionate has in place systems which help people who, for whatever reason are unable to find work, are ill, disabled or homeless. Welfare is intended to be a temporary aid for the most part, but we now see it as a permanent way where we allow people to exist.. no more than that.. not prosper. That the culture of welfare is a suppressant on peoples ambition and their will to fight their way out of their problems is only in part true. More truth can be found in Government and society's refusal to solve the problems which creates the need for welfare.. unemployment, bad housing, poverty and despair. Since the early 1980's we have seen things switch from employee and people to business and capital... the compassionate society which was the UK from 1945 till the election of Thatcher has disappeared and increasingly we see more of a culture of welfare, not because people do not want to get out of welfare and poverty, but because society has never used its wit and imagination and its resources to create the circumstances where people can haul themselves out of the trap of welfare.

In this country welfare is being butchered, and those who need it, more than any other part of our society are feeling the pinch. they have less to lose, and yet they are being hit hardest of all and are losing proportionately more than any other sector of our society...Government spends more time on cutting welfare than it does on almost any other part of its business, yet so little on getting to the root of the problem and creating the circumstances where those who are most vulnerable in our society can drag themselves out the need for welfare. Every month more and more people are finding themselves become welfare dependant. These are new receivers of welfare... and we still have those who successive governments have failed since the days of Thatcher and before.. the kids of the 1970s and 80s and 90s who have never known work... millions of them..

So it is no surprise to me that as the safety net is tightened and more are drawn into poverty and despair, and feel they have no stake in our society, that this country becomes more of a powder keg...

Welfare is part of a viscious circle where there are opportunities for them to advance.. opportunities do exist, but nowhere near enough to even scratch the surface of welfare, and in this country, for those that do somehow manage to find work, the opportunities which do exist are to a great extent part time and low paid, and because employers are a stingy bunch of bastards, and the state, through the tax and welfare system, subsidises employers to the sum of thousands of millions of pounds every year to providing tax credits and other payments such as rent and council tax rebates which are aimed at dragging the poorest paid out of poverty. That money may be paid not to the employer but to people, but they remain a state subsidy for business and capital...in the case of working families tax credits however, these are also paid to some remarkably prosperous people.. yet such is the unfairness of the system is that those who pay tax, yet cannot work through disability, and are far less well off than those who are working, often get nothing.

I do not believe in violence or rioting and certainly would never riot. I prefer to protest constructively and peacefully with an aim in mind... it is my nature.. yet because of the vast disparities in wealth and opportunity in my country, I understand why, not that the riots began, but why so many got caught up in them... those who, mainly were poor and had nothing and feel they would never have anything because of their view of a grim stark future which is only going to get grimmer and more stark... years and decades of having nothing can have a dehumanising effect.. and the tragedy is that our society does not learn from it.

I am considered middle class.. I am not.. my family background prevents me from considering myself such.. but I have never been in want.. I have wanted, but because of my circumstances can usually nip out and get or in the past have had gotten for me... I identify with the class in which my father and his father, my mother and her mother identify.. that of working people.. the working class. I do not recognise that there is an underclass... only working class people and their families deprived of their right.. the right to work and to prosper, a decent home and good health.. a decent education.. the right to opportunity...

Not one word, not one idea has come out of government in the last year to address the problems of those who have no work and are on welfare.. unless you consider the governments proposals to force people off welfare and into work addressing them... before you can do that first you have to have the work for them to do... and that becomes more scarce by the day... business is of no help.. it gets subsidies (bribes) to provide work very often but the work it provides is all too often part time and temporary and offers no real prospects for peoples future.. some people hold down 3 and 4 part time jobs just to keep their families above the breadline.. but no prospect of career or advancement.. no security whatever for them or their familes...

We are an increasingly intolerant and incompassionate society and it becomes more so every year.. people care about themselves, not those who are less fortunate than themselves.. the less fortunate what nowadays is called "the underclass" are not scum but people who generally make the best of the very limited resources available to them.. and that is welfare.. society traps them and their children in it.. business traps them in it, and our refusal to take seriously the fact that they have rights to decent opportunity which will enable them to pull themselves out of the welfare trap makes what happened a week or so ago more likely to happen again.. no amount of over heavy sentencing, imprisonment and zero tolerance will prevent that.. those are more likely to increase criminality and also to trap more people in to the welfare system.. making and example, as the government is telling magistrates and judges to do after the riots, is more likely to trap people and make them more reliant on welfare.. or worse.. crime...

.. and is it surprising that increasingly the less fortunate think of nothing but themselves? They have had years of feeling no one else does and so they try to survive as best they can...

So we have a lovely old scenario where nothing much changes.. except the fact that welfare is being eroded.. millions with nothing will have less.. and our streets are likely to be burning yet again because millions have nothing and less than nothing... are considered nothing and less than nothing.. and until we realise that those millions have to be provided with the opportunities where they feel they are a part of our society, we dry out the timber fabric of our society even more and make it more likely to go up in smoke..

This is long, possibly rambling, but of necessity so.. I don't apologise for it because I care, not just about the underprivileged, but about the country I live in.. mindless and stupid destruction, and the deaths that went with it like the other week do nothing to progress us as a people.. but they should serve as a warning that our own thoughtlessness and selfishness does not come without price... as the smoke clears, I hope but am not optimistic that we shall learn the lessons of the riots.. I care also about the world I live in and hope that from afar people can see the mistakes we are making as a society and learn the lessons we fail to learn.. no society is immune to the politics of despair..

It is all very well for people like Darkside and others to say they grew up with nothing and leaarned not to take what was not theirs.. it is a view I agree with entirely, but years of the crushing of the spirit, of despair and of poverty can make those who are less fortunate than ourselves feel they have a right to take a share without asking.. after all.. they see their "betters" do it every day and get away with it...

Overall murder in the UK runs at less than a third the rate of the US. Scotland is worst and it runs at around 40%.. nasty old Scotland.. make of that what u will.. but whatever u make of it.. not many here would prefer a gun toting society to the one we have now ( yes yes, I know Dark, NI has armed policemen..)...

[Long Duck Dong]

oh the green utopia of NZ, is no different...... we have the same issues here fran.... 1/3 of nz's live below the poverty line, food and basic essentials are on the rise.... and every day you hear of more and more businesses closing or outsourcing to india etc etc....

130 politicians on more than 130k a year ( serve 3 terms of 3 years and get a 80k+ a year pension ) sit on their asses, and pass more and more laws that cut deeper into the pockets of the average person... and each time they talk about making ends meet, they focus on the families in one city that are making a average wage of $7-800 a week ( the actual average wage in NZ is $425 )

the average benefit is $160 a week before top ups.... yet be a female, have a child and you can get about $400 a week on a benefit, yet a couple will get $318 a week ..... and NZ has one of the highest single parent rates in the world......

we now have cops with guns, cos they got tired of being beaten up, shot, killed, run down by people in cars etc.... the criminals do not care, they have had guns for years.... now most of them have computers and are called financial advisers...

in NZ we live in a country owned mostly by foreigners now as they have the money to buy what the average NZ'er can't... 38 % of nzers will own one house in their lifetime, less than that will own two or more, 62% will never own their own home....

under the age of 16, the law can not touch you, so we have children and young teens doing as they please..... and because your parents can not touch you either, thanks to the law, the parents have no control either..
but are told to take the blame and responsibility for their children......

and the thing is we created it, now we want others to fix it and make it all better, but without infringing on our rights, or doing or saying anything we do not like, and giving us and others more and more rights.....

with a suicide rate that is on the rise, sure it would be a danger to arm the general population, as it would be most likely, the one person they would shoot, would be themselves.....

the people that tell us that it will get better, are the ones that are financially secure, in their own homes, with insurance etc.... the ones that ask, how is it going to get better, are the ones that hand out the food parcels and help with budgeting and support, the ones that say we are still waiting... are the people that are sinking lower and lower into the mire......

in 86, I was on a benefit for a short time, the benefit rate was $156 a week, cigs were $1.13 a pack of 20, gas was $.36 a litre, milk was $.20 a litre....
in 11, I am on a different benefit, but the same benefit I was on, is $152 a week, cigs are $15.60 a pack of 20, gas is $1.98 a litre, milk is $3.60 a litre,

25 years... and the politicians average salary increased from 56k a year... to 136k a year plus subsidies like housing and living expenses paid, air travel paid, credit usage paid, transport costs paid.....

they are still telling us it will get better for us....... and we are still saying when ??????????? as they are looking at bringing in the food stamp system of the us, into NZ, to cut costs and expenses, and the people at the bottom, know that it simply means we will have less to live on in a world of rising costs.......

I look around at the rest of the world.... and I see so many countries in the same predicament..... hearing the same old " it will get better " and each day, it doesn't get better.... it doesn't change.... but more people just stop caring and hoping.... and either give up... or make their own way in life, IE crime, prostitution etc etc.......

[darkeyes]

Explain to me Duckie me luffly... as I understand it, in NZ a child of 10 can be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter and for some other serious offences from the age of 12. From the age of 14 they fall into the age of criminal responisbility.. how does that fall in with your claim that no child can be touched by the law until they are 16?

You and I come from the problems of our societies from different angles but we both share many of the same concerns if not how to solve those concerns but being aware of and sharing our concerns and acting upon them is how we do begin to resolve them.. not as the government of this country is doing, by closing its mind to what is really going on, the reasons why and deciding that it's historical way of dealing with trouble is the only solution.. we will all pay for that arrogant and stupid attitude..

[jamieknyc]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie,

Here is the relevant English legislation for comparison:-

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/

If I understood that correctly, the incitement statute was repealed in 2007. Howver, that doesn't state what exactly constitutes incitement.

[jamieknyc]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further to my previous post, and your reply, I did a little checking. Threats to the President of the United States are regarded as a Class D Felony, under United States Code Title 18, Section 871, punishable by five years prison, $250,000 fine, $100 special assessment and three years supervised release.

I've enclosed just one of the sources as there really are too many to cut and paste, but it includes relevant case law:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

So not quite the Freedom of Speech you imagined, as you can read it was based on the old British Treason Law. The case law includes at least one case of a threat made by a prisoner whilst still incarcerated, so the threat of imminence does not seem as important as you suggest, at least not with this example of your country's law.

I used this example purely as a comparison of our two country's legislation and it is not intended, nor should it be regarded, or inferred, as a threat of any kind against your President or his family.

The comparison is of merely academic interest to me. :)

That was not the point. Making a Facebook page is not a threat.

[Katja]

That was not the point. Making a Facebook page is not a threat.

Are you saying that if I was to write an entry in Facebook or Twitter and begin a campign encouraging people to gather outside the White House say on July 4 next year, to come armed to the teeth and to storm it, and kill all those within it with particular emphasis on slaughtering the President and his family, that is not considered incitement in US law? I would physically have to stand outside of the precinct of the building and do it from there for it to be illegal?

[jamieknyc]

Are you saying that if I was to write an entry in Facebook or Twitter and begin a campign encouraging people to gather outside the White House say on July 4 next year, to come armed to the teeth and to storm it, and kill all those within it with particular emphasis on slaughtering the President and his family, that is not considered incitement in US law? I would physically have to stand outside of the precinct of the building and do it from there for it to be illegal?

As I said before, you have the right to advocate illegal conduct, so long as the advocacy is done by lawful means. If you tried to get someone to carry out the threat made in the Facebook or Twitter campaign, you would be arrested for criminal solicitation, and if you sent a threatening communication to the White House, you would be arrested for threatening the President.

There have been several cases where people created Facebook pages advocating the assassination of Bush or Obama (usually short-lived because Facebook takes them down). The people who made them were investigated by the Secret Service to see if they were making any actual threats, but as far as I know, no one was arrested.

[darkeyes]

At last..voice of reason in a boiling sea of stupidity.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/19/riots-mother-looted-shorts-freed

[Darkside2009]

If I understood that correctly, the incitement statute was repealed in 2007. Howver, that doesn't state what exactly constitutes incitement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've cut and pasted the relevant definition from the site I referred you to, perhaps you missed it on first read through:-

Incitement
Section 59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 abolishes the common law offence of incitement with effect from 1 October 2008.

For offences committed before that date, incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:

a. s/he incites another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other; and
b. s/he intends or believes that the other, if he acts as incited, shall or will do so with the fault required for the offence(s) (R v Claydon [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 20)

It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited.

The prosecution must show that the person accused of incitement intended or believed that the person incited would, if acted as incited to do so, do so with the mens rea appropriate to the offence.

Incitement is usually a common law offence but there are some instances where statute has created the offence: e.g., section 19 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Where a person has been charged with incitement, the venue for trial is the same as for the offence incited. Therefore, incitement to commit a summary offence is only triable summarily and incitement to commit an indictable only offence may only be tried on indictment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore:-


Assisting or Encouraging Crime
Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates, at sections 44 to 46, three new inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed.

These offences replace the common law offence of incitement for all offences committed after 1 October 2008. They allow people who assist another to commit an offence to be prosecuted regardless of whether the underlying substantive offence is actually committed or attempted.

If you look under those two sections you will find all the information you require.

[Darkside2009]

It just serves to prove, Aunty Flan, never cross a Craig. :bigrin: No Datty Patty, it wasn't me, so don't get your hopes up.:bigrin:

To return to the thread, my school friend got 2 months. Evidently he was caught carrying a box of Mars bars and 800 cigarettes from a shop. As if cigarettes aren't expensive if enough. He was lucky. I read in one of the newspapers that a girl got 3 months for stealing some bottled water worth £3.70. Both my friend and the girl are first offenders. Without trying to minimise the seriousness of what they did, it does seem a little harsh.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree, no one in the UK needs to steal bottled water. Bottled water is comparatively cheap and if they can't afford that, they can get it straight from the tap, even cheaper.

They broke the law, they got caught, they paid the penalty. If we all just took what didn't belong to us, there would be no need for any of us to work. The resulting Society however would be horrendous to live in, much worse than it is now, not one person would be safe in it.

Welfare has to be pitched at such a level to give an incentive to work, it is supposed to be a safety net for those in genuine need, not an alternative to work. Again if we could obtain more sitting at home on benefits there would be no point in going out to work, but then there would be no one to tax to raise the money to pay those benefits.

You live in a Capitalist Society, business is geared to maximising profit and minimising cost thus maximising the return to those people that invest in them.

It may seem unfair that jobs are exported to places like China or India but remember their workers are paid less, much less, so profits for the company are greater. Remember all those Union fees and Pension contributions are invested in companies, they don't sit in a vault waiting for you to reach pension age.

What then is the answer? Back in Harold Wilson's time as Prime Minister they tried to persuade people to buy British goods were possible. It didn't work, businesses and people compared quality and bought as cheaply as they could.

We could retreat behind tariff barriers and make foreign goods as expensive to import and buy as their domestically produced equivalent, but that way leads to lack of innovation and stagnation.

Remember back to those pictures of the Japanese earthquake, one picture in particular sticks in mind. A road with a yawning chasm stretching right up the middle for as far as the eye could see. The Japanese workers had that road filled in, resurfaced, the relevant traffic lines painted on it and up and running in six days. Compare that to the weeks of cones and traffic disruption we would endure here in the UK.

You will have no doubt read of the influx of workers from Poland and Romania snapping up the available jobs here, they work extremely hard and accrue the benefits. They don't sit around wringing their hands thinking the World owes them a living, they just get on with it, in just the same way as waves of immigrants before them did.

So no, I don't feel sorry for your friend, or the girl who stole the bottled water, or those like them that stole what didn't belong to them. I feel sorry for those small business owners who had their businesses wrecked and destroyed. I feel sorry for those people who no longer have a job to go to because some moron burned down their place of work. I feel sorry for those people, both old and young, trapped and terrified in their own homes by a rampaging mob, with no sign of the police to protect them. I feel sorry for the wasted millions it has cost and will cost to clear-up the mess, that is millions less that could have been spent on housing, jobs, hospitals, schools etc. I feel sorry for the kid who was beaten up and had his bike and few belongings stolen from him by callous people who pretended to care for his welfare.

In one subsequent raid the police raided a flat and found £36,000 worth of stolen designer goods, I don't feel sorry for him either. We are not talking about people who stole food because they were starving, they stole because they could and there was not enough police around to stop them.

A few brave souls tried their best to protect their communities, they paid with their lives. It is they I honour and respect, not some rampaging mob.

Would events have been different if more guns were freely available to our citizens, as some have suggested? Personally, I wouldn't have thought so, if guns were that freely available, rioters would have access to them too, In which case the death toll might have been even higher.

Having guns in the house can make one a target for those that might wish to steal them, there have been a number of cases of this type in my country. They weren't given advance notice of an impending raid, just a gun stuck in their face when they answered the door-bell.

Does all this make me a reactionary? In the eyes of some, no doubt it does. As I said before I was raised in poverty by a gentle, loving, Christian woman, who taught me right from wrong. She didn't have much in her life in the way of Wordly goods, but she was blessed with a loving and determined spirit.

What she did have, she shared freely. She treated people with kindness,
dignity and respect and in return she was loved by all who knew her. What she didn't have, she made do without. Her wants and her needs were simple and she lived all the happier for it. If there is any good in me, it comes from her. I loved her dearly and I still grieve her loss. I doubt I shall meet her equal, in this World or the next, but I shall carry the moral compass her simple love provided, engrained in my heart, to my own grave.

[sammie19]

I am not defending anyone Dark. What they have done was stupid. My sympathies are more with those who lost out and suffered because of their actions than with them. I am not saying they don't deserve punishing because they do.

My school friend will lose his job if he has not already done so and he will have thrown away a career he wanted so much and worked so hard for. It is his own stupid fault, and his conviction will follow him for the rest of his life. As will the convictions of all in this sorry affair follow them. They deserve punishing but while some sentences will certainly be deserved, but some are also too much.

We all make mistakes and we all have to answer for them. As my mum is so fond of saying when I get too judgemental and condemnatory about others, "There but for the grace of God go I".

[Long Duck Dong]

Explain to me Duckie me luffly... as I understand it, in NZ a child of 10 can be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter and for some other serious offences from the age of 12. From the age of 14 they fall into the age of criminal responisbility.. how does that fall in with your claim that no child can be touched by the law until they are 16?



In New Zealand criminal responsibility begins at age 10, however, under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, those under 14 cannot be prosecuted except for murder and manslaughter. Charges heard in the Youth Court cannot result in a conviction. However, more serious charges involving young offenders may be transferred to a District or High Court where a conviction is a possible outcome.

you would have to petition the courts for permission to bring a under 16 before the high court and you have to prove that there is a very good reason for doing so, or in simple terms, you have to fight to have that child in front of the courts so they can be convicted. you can not just charge them and then pull them up in front of court and prosecute them.
even if the kid has been involved in a killing, it doesn't mean they will appear in court and even then, they do not serve any time in prison, they can be held in a youth detention center


there is a move to have the legal age for prosecution changed to the age of 12 and strong opposition from youth advocates, that act is still currently being debated and is not legal law.....

criminal responsibility means that under 16's go to family conferences and group talks, they can not serve a sentence of imprisonment, they can be confined to foster homes or at risk youth centers, and that includes kids that have killed people.


not sure what you googled fran, but your info is incorrect..... yet you are trying to tell me I am wrong.....

[Hephaestion]

Darkside2009 "........We could retreat behind tariff barriers and make foreign goods as expensive to import and buy as their domestically produced equivalent, but that way leads to lack of innovation and stagnation......"

Disagree.

Innovation has never been a problem in the UK. What is the problem is the translation of the innovation into commercial venture. The UK has consistently failed to invest in itself through its own money boys. This is exacerbated by the idea that the shareholders will always receive a large dividend further undermining the idea of investment and the workforce is squeezed into doing more for less. There is yet more bad practice by cooking the books to show health when there isn't any and raising capital by overborrowing against a potential rosey future

It is perpetually living the idea of a ruling oligarchy and its servants - a bit like Normans and serfs.

When foreign owned companies bring their investment and management techniques into the UK the associated companies thrive. When Nissan invested in a car manufacturing plant in the NE of Britain that plant proved to be the most productive and profitable in the NIssan stable.

Some time ago there were a series of lectures on the 'pursuit of excellence'. Those companies that were the most profitable were those with a small nucleus managment and a larger egalitarian periphery of the workforce more typical of the orient. THose that did not do very well were those with established pyramidal hierarchies as exemplified by the larger corporations in the UK and the USA. These tended to have innertia and lacked the ability to adjust to market requirements.

None of this excuses the behaviour in the riots but it does give credance to the complaint about selling the workforce down the river. Afterall, more people can be brought in through reckless immigration. We have castrated our young in traditional ways of finance and now have embarked upon a further move with tuition fees rather than moving to invest in them.

Tarrifs can be better seen as levelling the playing field in a different way from the free market approach. Were the last to be applied universally then the lame duck Bankers financiers and cheating politicians would be selling the Big Issue on street corners.

Of course this is merely twiddling around with the idea that Capitalism remains alive despite the death rattles and is thus justified in continuing to pursue its traditional shibboleths

[love1234]

Your words:

"This nation was founded by God fearing, God believing, Bible reading common white people. They froze, they bled, they starved, they fought for freedom and they risked everything to be a free people."


Gee, sure sounds like you said they were good little Bible toting christian soldiers. Of course, I've been known to misread the written word. How about we both rethink what you said, consider the actual intent, and what came over the transom.

Your words again:

"History tells us unarmed people get slaughtered."

Yes, while history may indeed show many instances of unarmed being slaughtered, it also shows other instances as well. One prime example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi). And the riots in England, also provided another. Yes there were causalities but not as many to warrant unarmed masses being 'slaughtered'. Sit-ins held in the sixties here in the U.S. also did not result in throngs of people being slaughtered. There was also The Million Man March, which did not incur wholesale slaughter. So, while I can agree that sometimes you're statement is correct, I can also agree it is not always correct. And guess what? It only takes one fly in the ointment to ruin the whole batch.

"A brief look into history should enlighten the "Progressives" in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people." Lets just say millions and millions died. I'm sure we all can agree on that. I can keep posting about the mass-murders of a people without guns and weapons because that is the history of the unarmed.
Its millions and millions of people that have been murdered and its all people without guns because their governments took them.

Like the song says "You ain't seen nothing yet" It will be billions of people that will be mass-murdered because they have no way to defend themselves I would guess over the next 50 years. Its just a mater of time. Its going on now.

Shooting in Butte, Montana
"Preteen Vs. illegal alien home invasion robbery Butte , Montana November 5, 2007 — Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana; and Patricia had been a clays shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house . She quickly ran to her father’s room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor, only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old’s knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he had taken from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest. An 11 year old girl , properly trained, defends her home and herself against two murderous, illegal aliens and wins. She is still alive, the bad guys are dead, and you probably never heard the story before now. Ever wonder why this sort of positive gun story never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, & MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news ? Pretty obvious, isn’t it? This story doesn’t fit the liberal mainstream media view that guns are bad and need to be controlled. Had this story happened in California or any other state with gun lock and storage laws , and had the father obeyed those counterproductive, unconstitutional laws, the girl would be raped, dead or both, the home looted, and two dirtbags would’ve been out on the street to rob, rape and murder again. But not to worry, your politicians and the media will continue to cooperate to keep stories like this away from you, and will continue to overwhelm you with carefully selected stories that are designed to convince you that “ gun control is good” — always ignoring, of course, that criminal wolves simply love legislatively disarmed sheep."

Some of us don't like being raped and murdered and we will fight back as this is our God Given Right.

[love1234]

Your words:

"This nation was founded by God fearing, God believing, Bible reading common white people. They froze, they bled, they starved, they fought for freedom and they risked everything to be a free people."


Gee, sure sounds like you said they were good little Bible toting christian soldiers. Of course, I've been known to misread the written word. How about we both rethink what you said, consider the actual intent, and what came over the transom.

Your words again:

"History tells us unarmed people get slaughtered."

Yes, while history may indeed show many instances of unarmed being slaughtered, it also shows other instances as well. One prime example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi). And the riots in England, also provided another. Yes there were causalities but not as many to warrant unarmed masses being 'slaughtered'. Sit-ins held in the sixties here in the U.S. also did not result in throngs of people being slaughtered. There was also The Million Man March, which did not incur wholesale slaughter. So, while I can agree that sometimes you're statement is correct, I can also agree it is not always correct. And guess what? It only takes one fly in the ointment to ruin the whole batch.

"A brief look into history should enlighten the "Progressives" in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people." Lets just say millions and millions died. I'm sure we all can agree on that. I can keep posting about the mass-murders of a people without guns and weapons because that is the history of the unarmed.
Its millions and millions of people that have been murdered and its all people without guns because their governments took them.

Like the song says "You ain't seen nothing yet" It will be billions of people that will be mass-murdered because they have no way to defend themselves I would guess over the next 50 years. Its just a mater of time. Its going on now.

Some of us don't like being raped and murdered and we will fight back as this is our God Given Right.

[love1234]

Further to the dsame subject, I saw a news story that two men in Chester were sentenced to four years for creating a Facebook page encouraging people to riot.
I encourage eveyone in England to over throw their evil government while they still can. Toss the evil elite blood-sucking scum into the river and watch it go to the sea.
Save yourselves from the evil elite now!!

[love1234]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've cut and pasted the relevant definition from the site I referred you to, perhaps you missed it on first read through:-

Incitement
Section 59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 abolishes the common law offence of incitement with effect from 1 October 2008.

For offences committed before that date, incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:

a. s/he incites another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other; and
b. s/he intends or believes that the other, if he acts as incited, shall or will do so with the fault required for the offence(s) (R v Claydon [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 20)

It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited.

The prosecution must show that the person accused of incitement intended or believed that the person incited would, if acted as incited to do so, do so with the mens rea appropriate to the offence.

Incitement is usually a common law offence but there are some instances where statute has created the offence: e.g., section 19 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Where a person has been charged with incitement, the venue for trial is the same as for the offence incited. Therefore, incitement to commit a summary offence is only triable summarily and incitement to commit an indictable only offence may only be tried on indictment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore:-


Assisting or Encouraging Crime
Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates, at sections 44 to 46, three new inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed.

These offences replace the common law offence of incitement for all offences committed after 1 October 2008. They allow people who assist another to commit an offence to be prosecuted regardless of whether the underlying substantive offence is actually committed or attempted.

If you look under those two sections you will find all the information you require.

Your whole system is fraud. Your courts are fraud. Your government is fraud and your people are too blind to see the fraud. All these rules are not legal in England or the UK. Your queen put her hand on the Holy Bible and said she would up hold The Laws Of God. She signed a document stating this also at the same time during her coronation.

The first fake (rule) law she signed into law broke the contract with the people and God so all these rules are null and void and she is no longer queen. You can watch her swearing to do this (up hold The Laws Of God) and kissing the Bible on line. Its on youtube. She should be executed for treason against God and His people. This is in the Bible also!! It is the penalty for making up laws. She is to be stoned to death according to the Bible she put her hand on to become queen.

She broke the contract. She is a devil. Your government is null and void!!!! Its forbidden by your God. She is a criminal, your politicians are criminals and your judges and most their enforcers are criminals. The bankers are all criminals. There might be a few of the enforcers that are not criminals. Those working murders, robbery, rape could be innocent?

Left and right bloodsucking (politicks) is forbidden by your God.

There is a reason your people have no arms and this is it. They are scared shitless that one day the people will wake the *uck up and demand justice. Get your pitch forks and go after the evil ones in London now before its to late.

[love1234]

"A brief look into history should enlighten the "Progressives" in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people." Lets just say millions and millions died. I'm sure we all can agree on that. I can keep posting about the mass-murders of a people without guns and weapons because that is the history of the unarmed.
Its millions and millions of people that have been murdered and its all people without guns because their governments took them.

Like the song says "You ain't seen nothing yet" It will be billions of people that will be mass-murdered because they have no way to defend themselves I would guess over the next 50 years. Its just a mater of time. Its going on now.

Shooting in Butte, Montana
"Preteen Vs. illegal alien home invasion robbery Butte , Montana November 5, 2007 — Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana; and Patricia had been a clays shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house . She quickly ran to her father’s room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor, only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old’s knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he had taken from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest. An 11 year old girl , properly trained, defends her home and herself against two murderous, illegal aliens and wins. She is still alive, the bad guys are dead, and you probably never heard the story before now. Ever wonder why this sort of positive gun story never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, & MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news ? Pretty obvious, isn’t it? This story doesn’t fit the liberal mainstream media view that guns are bad and need to be controlled. Had this story happened in California or any other state with gun lock and storage laws , and had the father obeyed those counterproductive, unconstitutional laws, the girl would be raped, dead or both, the home looted, and two dirtbags would’ve been out on the street to rob, rape and murder again. But not to worry, your politicians and the media will continue to cooperate to keep stories like this away from you, and will continue to overwhelm you with carefully selected stories that are designed to convince you that “ gun control is good” — always ignoring, of course, that criminal wolves simply love legislatively disarmed sheep."

Some of us don't like being raped and murdered and we will fight back as this is our God Given Right.
I tried to not post all this but something went wrong. What I wanted is below this large post.

[love1234]

I am not defending anyone Dark. What they have done was stupid. My sympathies are more with those who lost out and suffered because of their actions than with them. I am not saying they don't deserve punishing because they do.

My school friend will lose his job if he has not already done so and he will have thrown away a career he wanted so much and worked so hard for. It is his own stupid fault, and his conviction will follow him for the rest of his life. As will the convictions of all in this sorry affair follow them. They deserve punishing but while some sentences will certainly be deserved, but some are also too much.

We all make mistakes and we all have to answer for them. As my mum is so fond of saying when I get too judgemental and condemnatory about others, "There but for the grace of God go I". My sympathies are also with the people that had no arms to defend themselves.

Burn down the palace, government buildings, court buildings, banks, bankers homes, politicians homes, corporations and hang the traitors or build guillotines and off with their head.

Don't steal from some little shop.

[darkeyes]

Nice 2 know that the hysterical, ramblin, rantin arse wipes r still around... wot wud we do wivout 'em 2 cheer up our wakin' moments an clear our heads of the swirlin' confused morass of mumbo jumbo wich clogs 'em up...

...love by name.. but hardly by nature or inclination.. think 'e needs a lil tap on the head wiv that book a fairy stories 'e keeps talkin bout 2 clear out 'is own confused swirlin' morass of dross an bile..:)

[darkeyes]

In New Zealand criminal responsibility begins at age 10, however, under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, those under 14 cannot be prosecuted except for murder and manslaughter. Charges heard in the Youth Court cannot result in a conviction. However, more serious charges involving young offenders may be transferred to a District or High Court where a conviction is a possible outcome.

you would have to petition the courts for permission to bring a under 16 before the high court and you have to prove that there is a very good reason for doing so, or in simple terms, you have to fight to have that child in front of the courts so they can be convicted. you can not just charge them and then pull them up in front of court and prosecute them.
even if the kid has been involved in a killing, it doesn't mean they will appear in court and even then, they do not serve any time in prison, they can be held in a youth detention center


there is a move to have the legal age for prosecution changed to the age of 12 and strong opposition from youth advocates, that act is still currently being debated and is not legal law.....

criminal responsibility means that under 16's go to family conferences and group talks, they can not serve a sentence of imprisonment, they can be confined to foster homes or at risk youth centers, and that includes kids that have killed people.


not sure what you googled fran, but your info is incorrect..... yet you are trying to tell me I am wrong.....

It was Wiki actually never the most reliable resource but how NZ works its criminal law vis vis its kids its for it 2 decide.. whether or not it works well and satisfactorily is another matter and quite subjective.. u would know better than me, but whatever.. the fact is that ur claim of the age at which the law can deal with kids being 16 is not quite as u made it out to be...

[darkeyes]

Darkside2009 "........We could retreat behind tariff barriers and make foreign goods as expensive to import and buy as their domestically produced equivalent, but that way leads to lack of innovation and stagnation......"

Disagree.

Innovation has never been a problem in the UK. What is the problem is the translation of the innovation into commercial venture. The UK has consistently failed to invest in itself through its own money boys. This is exacerbated by the idea that the shareholders will always receive a large dividend further undermining the idea of investment and the workforce is squeezed into doing more for less. There is yet more bad practice by cooking the books to show health when there isn't any and raising capital by overborrowing against a potential rosey future

It is perpetually living the idea of a ruling oligarchy and its servants - a bit like Normans and serfs.

When foreign owned companies bring their investment and management techniques into the UK the associated companies thrive. When Nissan invested in a car manufacturing plant in the NE of Britain that plant proved to be the most productive and profitable in the NIssan stable.

Some time ago there were a series of lectures on the 'pursuit of excellence'. Those companies that were the most profitable were those with a small nucleus managment and a larger egalitarian periphery of the workforce more typical of the orient. THose that did not do very well were those with established pyramidal hierarchies as exemplified by the larger corporations in the UK and the USA. These tended to have innertia and lacked the ability to adjust to market requirements.

None of this excuses the behaviour in the riots but it does give credance to the complaint about selling the workforce down the river. Afterall, more people can be brought in through reckless immigration. We have castrated our young in traditional ways of finance and now have embarked upon a further move with tuition fees rather than moving to invest in them.

Tarrifs can be better seen as levelling the playing field in a different way from the free market approach. Were the last to be applied universally then the lame duck Bankers financiers and cheating politicians would be selling the Big Issue on street corners.

Of course this is merely twiddling around with the idea that Capitalism remains alive despite the death rattles and is thus justified in continuing to pursue its traditional shibboleths

We can go round the houses on why we are in the poop all you like.. but in this post u hit the nail on the head to some extent.. in the 19th century we had innovative industry which changed the world. By the start of the 20th British capitalism began to sit back and rest on its laurels.. it wasnt so much about being innovative as sitting back and raking in the money.

As the century progressed, aside from two wars, British industry began to decline through lack of investment and abroad other countries caught up and overtook our industry in incestment and innovation.. we had one strong saving grace.. the empire, captive markets which still bought British and supplied us with the raw materials to get things done.. but the fact is that it was increasingly uncompetitive with other advanced countries.

The wars both helped both delay and at the same time speed up Britains decline. Industry all but disappeared from our towns and cities because we did not invest nor did we use the natural innovation which had created the industrial revolution.. that we exported around the world and helped other nations to create and build industrial economies which have left us standing economically.

Even now, as a post indutrial society, we still do not invest, nor do we use our innovation to create new business which the world really wants to buy and so create an economy which will thrive. Government and business is too interested in capital and creates the conditions where capital rules, the rich get richer and the rest sink or swim. They talk of investment, yet do not create the conditions where we get anything near the investment we need to thrive. We are increasingly a low wage economy, and we consistently remove from workers the ability to prosper. Certainly in many ways people are better off than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but that is relative. In the 1960's we had full employment, but from that time we have increasingly seen ever greater numbers thrown on the scrapheap before they even leave school... if u listen to school kids, far too many believe that they are never going to work ever... not because they do not wish to but because thats how things are around them, and those that will be lucky enough to get a job, know that such will be the pay levels that it is almost hardly worth it.. dead end, part time, unskilled, no prospect jobs..

.. it is that historical background that has created the feeling that so many have no stake in our society, and that it has betrayed them.. and it has betrayed them.. Government talks about how many jobs it creates.. what it does not go into is the kind of jobs they are, the conditions and pay level they have, the 19th century way people are treated in those jobs, the difficulties people have in getting to those jobs, and how many jobs people have to hold down to make it worth their while..

I live in a prosperous suburb of an immensely rich city, work in a school in an idyllic rural part of the country. In both city and countryside there is real despair as people struggle to find work, keep work and to make ends meet.. they are challenged in a way they have not been even in Thatcher's time because the recession is biting harder upon us than it ever did even our parents in her time as hater in chief of working people.. and for the most part it is biting hardest on the ability of the less well off, in and out of work to make ends meet...

..We can rant about immigration.. immigration is not really a factor.. it is a nice sound bite for those with an axe to grind to distract us from the reality of who is to blame for the mess we are in... immigration is good value for money for immigration creates more jobs for British people than they take, and immigrants tend to take the jobs that British people cannot or in some cases will not because of logistics or economics...

.. we can create tariffs.. its easy done but can never be seen as a long term solution.. often the solution is so short lived because tariffs are suddenly raised against us and we are not so much back to square one as deeper in the mire because of our relative economic weakness and trade war is no good for anyone...

There is no substitute for innovation and investment in people and industry.. whether that be industry which is service or any other kind doesnt matter as long as it is one which itself is innovative and what people want.. we do not do that well, and have not done so for over a century.. capital is all.. not people.. when u invest, innovate and treat people with dignity and respect they respond in kind... fail to do so and treat them like so much dirt in your shoe and you get what happened in England just a couple of weeks ago...

Finally Heph...if I agree with nothing else in your post, and I do with much of it, I agree entirely wiith your very last sentence... just how many chances does capitalism get at fucking us up? And capitalism and capitalists are at it again or hasn't anyone noticed?

[Darkside2009]

Love 1234, Have you ever thought of selling your brain, one owner, never been used, it should be worth a lot of money?

[Long Duck Dong]

It was Wiki actually never the most reliable resource but how NZ works its criminal law vis vis its kids its for it 2 decide.. whether or not it works well and satisfactorily is another matter and quite subjective.. u would know better than me, but whatever.. the fact is that ur claim of the age at which the law can deal with kids being 16 is not quite as u made it out to be...

I said under 16s, not being 16, they can be charged as adults at the age of age... under the age of 16, they are protected from criminal prosecution by law, unless the criminal act is deemed to be of a nature, that they have to be tried as adults, then there is a legal guideline that removes the protections and they become treated as adults, not under 16's

the reason for that, is a under 16 is protected by law from prosecution for crimes that carry a term of imprisonment.

[Katja]

Love 1234, Have you ever thought of selling your brain, one owner, never been used, it should be worth a lot of money?

I very much doubt that anyone would be prepared to pay for something which doesnt exist.

[void()]

"A brief look into history should enlighten the "Progressives" in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people." Lets just say millions and millions died. I'm sure we all can agree on that. I can keep posting about the mass-murders of a people without guns and weapons because that is the history of the unarmed.
Its millions and millions of people that have been murdered and its all people without guns because their governments took them.

Like the song says "You ain't seen nothing yet" It will be billions of people that will be mass-murdered because they have no way to defend themselves I would guess over the next 50 years. Its just a mater of time. Its going on now.

Some of us don't like being raped and murdered and we will fight back as this is our God Given Right.

You completely miss the point there, shooter. As I was attempting to illustrate in my last post herein directed to you, one does not need guns to be armed. It is also not only a 'god' given right to defend ones' self and those whom they love. As an Atheist, I would do whatever needed doing bearing no doubt.

Guns are not the only arms. They are merely seen arms which demonstrate might over accuracy. A mind can remain unseen, attacking with surgical precision. Adage reads, where mind goes body follows. See how blinded you are by the might of guns? See the target you missed?

Care to let me sight it in? I only require three shots to sight a gun in, any more than such an error exists within me and shells are wasted. We got lots of 'good ol' boys' round yon, they whoop it up and unload bricks of ammo just to hit a hay bale at 50 yards. I just shake my noggin and go on. Swords and words often work better. Although at times it is just better to ...

[Hephaestion]

........We can rant about immigration.. immigration is not really a factor.. it is a nice sound bite for those with an axe to grind to distract us from the reality of who is to blame for the mess we are in... immigration is good value for money for immigration creates more jobs for British people than they take, and immigrants tend to take the jobs that British people cannot or in some cases will not because of logistics or economics........

Reckless immigration. All of the peoples in these islands are immigrants at one time or another. With each 'wave' there is unbdoubtedly a degree of benefit. The London of my life is truly cosmopolitan and wonderful in its hubbub.

One aspect is that there is need for gentle adjustment. In its absence there is tendancy to self recognition and the development of ghettos and gangs.

Another more important aspect is a sad realisation that these islands are in a precarious situation in the balance between resources of all types and the other factor that is bestowed - sheer numbers.

We have difficulty in maintaining the population level that exists at present. The UK is now the most densly populated 'country' in the EU.

In general, this factor is becoming true for the entire planet.

One can adjust things for greater efficiency, fairness, and optimism, but the fact remains inescapable. It is that the human population of this entire planet needs to be reduced as gently as possible and as soon as possible. The planet is not static. We are in dynamic equilibrium with it, it with itself, it with the the solar system, and so on.



...... we can create tariffs.. its easy done but can never be seen as a long term solution.. often the solution is so short lived because tariffs are suddenly raised against us and we are not so much back to square one as deeper in the mire because of our relative economic weakness and trade war is no good for anyone...


Agreed, but the free market is also not working, partly because it is not universally applied. The real answer is to develop more of an immunity to problems by heading towards self sufficiency as we are trying to do with all sorts of green agendas.

In this, the factor of population levels versus resources needs to be addressed, while bearing in mind that the ever expanding economy is a myth. In the concept of the free market, economies are actually in resonance. What then become issues are amplitude and frequency of the oscillations.


.

[void()]

Eugenics is not a means to end as it bears out far too much ethical and moral baggage. A bit of prestidigitation by our governments, eugenics is used no matter our rebuke of it. They package it all up in what is called war. We fear running out of resources and so accept eugenics.

It seems to me the song remains the same all along. Those whom have will continue having and prospering, those not having will only lose or be extinct. This provokes a question deep inside. Who has decided whom may have and whom may not, what metrics are used?

Would that it were as easy as following the money, we could reveal whom does this. They use fear of running out of resources to manipulate us into war. Our vision is obfuscated in the haze. Unless ...

What if all this crap about running out of resources, is just that, crap? We ought to consider a theory postulated by Hawkings. It says simply our universe was created from nothing. Guess that would negate the adage of not getting something from nothing, eh? And in considering that, is it too far gone to think all of this always has been and always will be?

Maybe that is a Truth. We are not running out of resources for resources always exist and will continue so. This would be worth concealing, I think. Yet if one knows this, why then cause havoc? Entertainment?

[darkeyes]

Reckless immigration. All of the peoples in these islands are immigrants at one time or another. With each 'wave' there is unbdoubtedly a degree of benefit. The London of my life is truly cosmopolitan and wonderful in its hubbub.

One aspect is that there is need for gentle adjustment. In its absence there is tendancy to self recognition and the development of ghettos and gangs.

Another more important aspect is a sad realisation that these islands are in a precarious situation in the balance between resources of all types and the other factor that is bestowed - sheer numbers.

We have difficulty in maintaining the population level that exists at present. The UK is now the most densly populated 'country' in the EU.

In general, this factor is becoming true for the entire planet.

One can adjust things for greater efficiency, fairness, and optimism, but the fact remains inescapable. It is that the human population of this entire planet needs to be reduced as gently as possible and as soon as possible. The planet is not static. We are in dynamic equilibrium with it, it with itself, it with the the solar system, and so on.




Agreed, but the free market is also not working, partly because it is not universally applied. The real answer is to develop more of an immunity to problems by heading towards self sufficiency as we are trying to do with all sorts of green agendas.

In this, the factor of population levels versus resources needs to be addressed, while bearing in mind that the ever expanding economy is a myth. In the concept of the free market, economies are actually in resonance. What then become issues are amplitude and frequency of the oscillations.


.

I had already written quite lengthy response to you Heph as my way sometimes.. tee hee.. then scrapped it not co it wasnt pertinent but cos it was substantially in agreement with what u have said.. I can quibble about what you mean by immigration, reckless or otherwise, and we can look at tariffs differently but about making ourselves more self sufficient and greener I make no disagreement whatsoever.. I do take issue on the fact that the free market is not working however.. it is.. it works very well for itself and those who stand to benefit most from it.. and I don't mean the ordinary consumer.. not the likes of you or I... we are but the hapless dummies who have to live with its ups and downs, as evidenced by events of the last few years and more immediately the last few weeks as yet again we face going ever deeper into recession..

I agree with you that we have to reduce the population.. the free market is not the vehicle to cope with or allow that.. capitalism needs an increasing population to enable it to thrive.. if we continue with the unfettered capitalism we have at present.. we will be looking at population collapse.. and the street riots of a few weeks ago will be as nothing compared to the chaos which will exist on the streets of our cities as that takes place.. and around the world human beings will struggle with each other for resources they need not for comfort, but for survival..

.. but population reduction is for the future, and it is an issue that has to be addressed very soon if we are not going to have that collapse.. because of we do have population collapse there is an issue which will knock us back even farther than the stone age.. one which threatens the very existence of life on the planet.. it is really an issue for another thread, but is one I mention in the passing.. what do we do to Nuclear power stations when we have insufficient people left to keep them running or decomission them safely? Fukushima is a stark warning as was Chernobyl..

.. but it is for the future, and very much the immediate future.. looking at the present what happened to our towns and cities is symptomatic of the free markets lack of compassion for its consumers.. and the lack of compassion and care of the proponents of the free market.. you cannot create a whole generation with little hope and expect no reaction from that generation.. since the early 1980s we have created several generations which have little or no hope of being welcomed into the prosperity of the rest of the population.. generations millions strong.. we have created a grab it if you can society.. the riots were a consequence of the attitudes of Thatcher and Blair..

It is all very nice to say as some do their mum was a lovely honest person who brought them up to be the same.. who was loved by all.. and would do what she could to provide honestly for her family.. people like that still exist, and still exist in large numbers.. but even back in the past there were still those who took because of greed.. and took because of hopelessness.. and now we have it in spades.. because that is the pervading attitude of our society as encouraged and exampled by our "betters" and leaders... a lack of hope will always spell trouble.. and millions of our people have no hope because they are offered none, and see what little they have drained away from them every day by a society which often blames them for their own predicament...

Cameron talks of a loss of moral fibre... well he should know.. he too was caught with his sticky fingers in the till during the expenses scandal and made to pay back monies to which he was not entitled.. a bit like half the politicians in the land.. they may or may not have been honest claims made because of misunderstanding, but when those without hope perceive their "betters" stealing and getting away with it unpunished is it any great surprise that they decide to go on a rampage of looting and pillaging? We live in a smash and grab society.. that is the way since Thatcher we have been encouraged to think.. well.. the rioters smashed and they grabbed.. what the hell did they expect when they changed the entire ethos of a nation?

[darkeyes]

I said under 16s, not being 16

Which is actually what I said if u care 2 check back... but what matters is that there are laws in place which are intended to deal with those under the age of 16 down to the age of 10.. whether they work or work well is the point.. you have very strong views on that and I accept that.. others will differ I would think.. the truth is probably somewhere in between.. bit like here.. some bits are ok some is just so much old tosh.. the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12, and in the rest of the UK it is 10.. I am, suprisingly you may think, one who thinks that there is certainly a very strong case to be made to bring my country into line with the rest of the UK.. I'm not quite 100% persuaded and my natural instincts fight my logic and common sense here.. which is why I havent quite come down and accepted it.. but logically, the case seems much stronger than the case for retention.. its just I hate falling in to line with the enemy..:)

[Long Duck Dong]

Which is actually what I said if u care 2 check back... but what matters is that there are laws in place which are intended to deal with those under the age of 16 down to the age of 10.. whether they work or work well is the point.. you have very strong views on that and I accept that.. others will differ I would think.. the truth is probably somewhere in between.. bit like here.. some bits are ok some is just so much old tosh.. the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12, and in the rest of the UK it is 10.. I am, suprisingly you may think, one who thinks that there is certainly a very strong case to be made to bring my country into line with the rest of the UK.. I'm not quite 100% persuaded and my natural instincts fight my logic and common sense here.. which is why I havent quite come down and accepted it.. but logically, the case seems much stronger than the case for retention.. its just I hate falling in to line with the enemy..:)

no there is not.....

there was a case in NZ, where a gang of girls beat another girl so badly, she was left brain damaged, the only punishment the girls got, was a 3 day suspension from school, cos they were under 16

months later, a cell phone video surfaced showing the assault, the mother presented it to police, and the police spent a considerable amount of time, trying to find a way to charge the girls with a offence that would result in punishment...... cos the laws protected the bullies from prosecution and punishment

the general practice, is to have a family group conference and have the girls say I am sorry for hitting you, lets have a group hug.....and then the bullies go to counselling and back to school.....

now how the hell do you think the victim feels and the parents of the victim.... when they see the bullies go back to the same school to get their education... and the chance to bully and possibly injury another person......

what protects the bullies is the so called human rights laws that protect a persons rights..... and one of them stops schools expelling bullies cos they have a right to a education, another stops bullies under the age of 16 being treated like the criminals they are, cos punishing them for their actions is not fair on them as it can adversely affect their schooling and education......

btw, the greenies that celebrated the human rights laws that they pushed for, were nowhere to be seen and offered no help to the victim with the brain damage..... cos to do so, would be seen as a indication that they are acknowledging the laws did not work the way they wanted and the utopia they talked about, never happened...... what has happened, is a sharp increase in the teen suicide rates cos of bullying

now tell me about the laws in NZ again fran......

[darkeyes]

I'm not telling u anything about the law of New Zealand.. I leave you to rant about them and tell me how you think they work.. or don't.. and you do.. which is fine.. but there are two sides to every story.. often stories are multi sided... just as I put over my points, great.. peeps question and take issue and try and rip my arguments to shreds... thats fine too.. :) Just don't get narked at me cos I asked u to clarify your claim that under the age of 16 that the criminal law cannot touch kids when it can... down to the age of 10... when it patently can...

We have many of the same issues here that you have and many of the same claims made about children and the law.. all are important and difficult issues to which there are no easy answers... some the law handles well, some pretty stupidly... where it works well, we strive to build on that and even improve of it where we can.. where it works badly, we have to do a more fundamental review of the issue and make sure it gets done right next time..

There are always going to be issues of human rights in both civil and criminal law and it is right that their should be... ensuring our law defends people and their civil rights is essential in a civilised society.. but there are and always will be very tricky questions and it is a balancing act that is a difficult thing to pull off... that it can be done I have no doubt, but being human made law and having human made rights we will not get it right first time every time... or second or third.. but perseverance and human ingenuity will get their in the end...

.. I was asked the other day if I thought human rights were more important than the law... I answered in the affirmative.. because all law is or should be subservient to the rights of humanity, both humanity as an individual and humanity as a species... which is why many governments hate human rights conventions.. they have to tailor the law accordingly... there are incredible difficulties in balancing not just human rights conventions with the law, but of balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the society of humanity as a whole... imperfect beings as we are... we get those wrong all too often.. but because we get them wrong does not make the principle and the search for making it all balance properly right.. when it is out of kilter we see the consequences.. quite often even when it is in balance the consequences can be unpleasant also for many people... we have to look at the whole picture and the long term to see what is our ultimate aim before we discard human rights and their affects on the law.. my argument is that we can never afford to discard them, nor should we pass law contrary to them... but that we struggle to accommodate both as best we can for the defence and betterment of humanity. When we allow law to have precedence over human rights we move into the realm of tyranny...

This in some ways seems as if it has nothing to do with the events in the south of Britain the other week.. it does.. a great deal.. because government is making noises against human rights, and it is already, arguably some would say, but from my point of view certainly, abusing them by ignoring the law and ignoring the human rights upon which our law is based and as a signatory to various human rights conventions is committed.. it can withdraw from any or all of these conventions and frame its own vision of human rights but these will be the vision of a small people.. still human rights but more than likely human rights for a few not for all...

We have seen our cities burning and much looting and riot... without the influence of human rights on our law and restraining governments from acting as they see fit, not in accord with human rights principle except the principle of human rights for an elite few, we shall see far more than a few cities burn in time.

[jamieknyc]

Which is actually what I said if u care 2 check back... but what matters is that there are laws in place which are intended to deal with those under the age of 16 down to the age of 10.. whether they work or work well is the point.. you have very strong views on that and I accept that.. others will differ I would think.. the truth is probably somewhere in between.. bit like here.. some bits are ok some is just so much old tosh.. the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12, and in the rest of the UK it is 10.. I am, suprisingly you may think, one who thinks that there is certainly a very strong case to be made to bring my country into line with the rest of the UK.. I'm not quite 100% persuaded and my natural instincts fight my logic and common sense here.. which is why I havent quite come down and accepted it.. but logically, the case seems much stronger than the case for retention.. its just I hate falling in to line with the enemy..:)

The juvenile justice system in any country was intended to prevent kids who were in minor scrapes witht eh law from getting a criminal record. It was never intended to deal with serious violent crime.

[darkeyes]

The juvenile justice system in any country was intended to prevent kids who were in minor scrapes witht eh law from getting a criminal record. It was never intended to deal with serious violent crime.

U think? Doesn't work that well in doin that.. number of kids with records long as ya arm that are leaving school well stigmatised doesn't tell us the intention has held up... there always were kids who were violent little buggers and the forces of law and order, legislators and penal reformers all know and knew that too.. wasn't it more to do with trying to stop kids from being shoved into a more harsh justice system whatever their crime and try and reform them to get out into the world as decent law abiding citizens, and being children, treat them within the justice system with a bit more compassion and understanding than were they adults? Whichever way it is Jamie.. it's failing bloody miserably... sometimes the crime is so horrific that even kids as young as 10 are hauled before Judges and juries in "big peoples" courts as in the Bulger case... I'm not trying to score points here just accepting for now what is a sad reality..

[jamieknyc]

U think? Doesn't work that well in doin that.. number of kids with records long as ya arm that are leaving school well stigmatised doesn't tell us the intention has held up... there always were kids who were violent little buggers and the forces of law and order, legislators and penal reformers all know and knew that too.. wasn't it more to do with trying to stop kids from being shoved into a more harsh justice system whatever their crime and try and reform them to get out into the world as decent law abiding citizens, and being children, treat them within the justice system with a bit more compassion and understanding than were they adults? Whichever way it is Jamie.. it's failing bloody miserably... sometimes the crime is so horrific that even kids as young as 10 are hauled before Judges and juries in "big peoples" courts as in the Bulger case... I'm not trying to score points here just accepting for now what is a sad reality..

That was the intention. Obviously it hasn't worked out too well.

[Darkside2009]

The Human Rights Act already forms part of our domestic law. One of those rights we have, is to own property. Those who steal our property deprive us of that right, it is therefore fitting that they should face the full penalty of the law for their offence.

I will not try to excuse them as others have done by saying they live in poverty. Millions in the UK live in less than prosperous circumstances, some in poverty and others in abject squalor.

The fact that millions did not riot speaks for itself, the rioters numbered a few thousand. They are being traced and found as we speak and processed through our courts. The fact that they have found themselves in court is their own fault, they weren't forced to riot or steal what didn't belong to them.

They bear personal responsibility for what they did, they are facing the consequences. Mention was made of politicians fiddling their expenses, don't vote for them next time, petition their Political Parties to select only candidates of the highest integrity and where they prove otherwise have the Parties de-select them and refer them for prosecution. Just as we do for everyone else. Or better still, get involved in politics and stand for election yourself.

It is a sad truth that we get the politicians we vote for.

To those that might be interested in what rights apply within the UK, you can get an overview at this site, it is too long to cut and paste but makes interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Long Duck Dong]

I'm not telling u anything about the law of New Zealand.. I leave you to rant about them and tell me how you think they work.. or don't.. and you do.. which is fine.. but there are two sides to every story.. often stories are multi sided... just as I put over my points, great.. peeps question and take issue and try and rip my arguments to shreds... thats fine too.. :) Just don't get narked at me cos I asked u to clarify your claim that under the age of 16 that the criminal law cannot touch kids when it can... down to the age of 10... when it patently can...


and I am clarifying that it can not and that under 16s could not be touched...... copying and pasting a wikipedia quote proved nothing... as it never clarified the extent to which the law works, only that people can be held criminally responsibly

that is further reflected by the greenies wanting further changes to the law, that would result in parents serving time for their childrens actions, if the children are under 16...... its simply another case of removing personal responsibility and shifting the blame ........

I am not getting narked at you for your opinion, merely pointing out that england is not NZ, our ways are different, our mindset is different and the way we are mishandling things is different. but nor am I saying you are incorrect about what is happening in the UK as I am a outsider, the cultural and racial social structure is different to NZ, and that is why I do not sit here and tell you that you are wrong about how the laws work in your country and how my country is better etc etc..... cos my country is not better.... we are a trend setter in how to fuck things up royally.....

[Pasadenacpl2]

U think? Doesn't work that well in doin that.. number of kids with records long as ya arm that are leaving school well stigmatised doesn't tell us the intention has held up... there always were kids who were violent little buggers and the forces of law and order, legislators and penal reformers all know and knew that too.. wasn't it more to do with trying to stop kids from being shoved into a more harsh justice system whatever their crime and try and reform them to get out into the world as decent law abiding citizens, and being children, treat them within the justice system with a bit more compassion and understanding than were they adults? Whichever way it is Jamie.. it's failing bloody miserably... sometimes the crime is so horrific that even kids as young as 10 are hauled before Judges and juries in "big peoples" courts as in the Bulger case... I'm not trying to score points here just accepting for now what is a sad reality..

In a perfect world, I would share your sympathies. What we have, is an imperfect one, though.

I don't agree with kids being tried as adults, no matter what the crime (with the caveat of exceptions for kids we can prove were using that protection as a loophole). I do agree with murderers getting stiff sentences no matter what their age.

But, your general points seem to point to the problem with the penal system in general no matter what nation. We spend all of our money on punishing and damn little on re-education. Look, there are some people who will just be dirtbags. We know this. But, there are some crimes from which rehabilitation is possible.

Example: In New Mexico there was a program that was put in place to address the psychological issues and thinking processes of child molesters. Their program was a 4 year program. The convicts still had to do their time and pay their debt to society. But, under this program, they got real treatment. The recidivism rate for those that completed the program was down around 25% (the average recidivism rate for non-violent offenders). Rather than keep a program that was being successful, New Mexico instead opted to shut it down and sign onto Megan's Law (a decision that has directly led to a 75% recidivism rate for pedophiles in New Mexico).

That's a program that brought down recidivism in what we (rightly) consider to be the worst possible offense a member of our society can commit. Imagine what we would be able to accomplish if we applied the same commitment to rehabilitation to ALL offenders, no matter what their age/crime. Imagine the increase in productivity in our society. Imagine the prisons not being over-crowded and the money that would save us.

I'm not soft on crime. I'm a hardass on crime. I am also committed to finding better solutions, and 200 years of the US penal system (which mirrors the UKs) shows us that the one we have now is piss poor.

Pasa

[tenni]

Well, I'm going to have to agree with Pasa. Most countries prison system fail society and the convicts. Recividism is sadly more common than not. As I was reading his post on pedophile rehabilitation efforts I could not help but think of the failure for helping the mentally ill who were released from Mental Institutions in droves after a very successful programme proved that keeping the mentally ill in these institution beyond a few months was detrimental. It was then nearly impossible to successfully integrate them back in society even if their mental health improved. Unfortunately law makers etc. got ahold of the study results and just dumped them on the street. The actual programme required social workers support etc. was necessary to help integrate them but governments have not provided the support to make the integration successful. I understand that a lot of those patients with psychosis end up in jails now instead of mental institutions. Nothing really changed.
How many young people who rioted will end up as repeat offenders is yet unknown. They don't need codling. They need proper remediation with money spent of good support systems.

[Pasadenacpl2]

IN the instance of the rioters, I don't think it falls under what we would call normal circumstances. These are not your average criminal. Rather, they are very much what we saw in Lord of the Flies. What happens when the fear of recrimination is low? Bad behavior.

Spank their asses, make them do community service (preferably service that benefits the store owners), and send them on their way. Once normalcy is restored, these folks will go back to being fairly normal and law abiding citizens.

When there is nothing to force us to obey the law, most will not. It is sad, but true. Civilization is not our natural state of being. It is forced upon us by our parents and by society because it is the only way civilization continues apace. We all agree, by social contract, that this is for our own benefit. But when that social contract is not in force, many people will revert as the opportunity arises to do so.

Studies will be done on this affair as the years go on. I look forward to their findings.

Pasa

[Darkside2009]

It wasn't just thieving and arson that occurred during the riots, a number of people lost their lives, so community service will not suffice for them.

In the James Bulger case that was mentioned, little attention was afforded the victim or his family, or the trauma they went through and still go through to this day. Whereas great efforts were made to re-habilitate his killers.

The penalty the killers received was inadequate compared to the lifetime of suffering the victim's family will have to endure, and the nature of the killing.

You can read the details of the case and decide for yourselves:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

[darkeyes]

I'm not soft on crime. I'm a hardass on crime. I am also committed to finding better solutions, and 200 years of the US penal system (which mirrors the UKs) shows us that the one we have now is piss poor.

Pasa

Funnily enough Pasa, I may look at crime, the causes of crime and the penal system from a different perspective than u, but I agree with u and most of what you said in the rest of ur post... I may not be a hardass as u put it, but not being a hardass doesnt make me soft...:)

[darkeyes]

It wasn't just thieving and arson that occurred during the riots, a number of people lost their lives, so community service will not suffice for them.

In the James Bulger case that was mentioned, little attention was afforded the victim or his family, or the trauma they went through and still go through to this day. Whereas great efforts were made to re-habilitate his killers.

The penalty the killers received was inadequate compared to the lifetime of suffering the victim's family will have to endure, and the nature of the killing.

You can read the details of the case and decide for yourselves:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Dark babes.. I wasnt making a point about the rightness or wrongness of the trial and punishment of Thomson and Venables.. merely using them as an example of how sometimes the youngest of kids who can be held criminally responsible can be dealt with by the system.. and that the systems we have for dealing with children who have committed crime has imperfections just as the rest of the system has.. regarding the rehabilitation of the two boys we do not know precisely what form rehabilitation efforts took, or whether these efforts were "great".. we are told they were made.. no more no less... in the case of at least one of them they werent too successful however great they may have been...

[darkeyes]

The Human Rights Act already forms part of our domestic law. One of those rights we have, is to own property. Those who steal our property deprive us of that right, it is therefore fitting that they should face the full penalty of the law for their offence.

I will not try to excuse them as others have done by saying they live in poverty. Millions in the UK live in less than prosperous circumstances, some in poverty and others in abject squalor.

The fact that millions did not riot speaks for itself, the rioters numbered a few thousand. They are being traced and found as we speak and processed through our courts. The fact that they have found themselves in court is their own fault, they weren't forced to riot or steal what didn't belong to them.

They bear personal responsibility for what they did, they are facing the consequences. Mention was made of politicians fiddling their expenses, don't vote for them next time, petition their Political Parties to select only candidates of the highest integrity and where they prove otherwise have the Parties de-select them and refer them for prosecution. Just as we do for everyone else. Or better still, get involved in politics and stand for election yourself.

It is a sad truth that we get the politicians we vote for.

To those that might be interested in what rights apply within the UK, you can get an overview at this site, it is too long to cut and paste but makes interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

If you believe that by my mentioning poverty I am trying to excuse those who caused so much destruction, mayhem and death you are very much mistaken.. I do not excuse them.. nor do very many others who view personal circumstances of the poor, unemployed and disinherited as a contributory factor to the riots.. it is not excusing them but it is a reason we cannot ignore.. more and more people have been ignored and cast onto the scrap heap over the last 30/40 years and some have been on that scrap heap all of that time.. that is the point we make and that if we are to avoid a repeat of these riots efforts have to be made to address that and give real hope to those who have none...

[jamieknyc]

If you believe that by my mentioning poverty I am trying to excuse those who caused so much destruction, mayhem and death you are very much mistaken.. I do not excuse them.. nor do very many others who view personal circumstances of the poor, unemployed and disinherited as a contributory factor to the riots.. it is not excusing them but it is a reason we cannot ignore.. more and more people have been ignored and cast onto the scrap heap over the last 30/40 years and some have been on that scrap heap all of that time.. that is the point we make and that if we are to avoid a repeat of these riots efforts have to be made to address that and give real hope to those who have none...

Most criminals are people who could, if they wished, make a living as law-abiding citizens. They become criminals because in certain circumstances, crime pays.

[darkeyes]

Most criminals are people who could, if they wished, make a living as law-abiding citizens. They become criminals because in certain circumstances, crime pays.

I can go along with that Jamie.. but its not enough is it?

Crime often pays better than a hum drum job earning minimum wage holding down 3 or 4 P/T jobs working all hours grafting all hours, spending too much tiem commuting very often between them and home with the appropriate ttravel to work costs..with no real prospects and hardly ever having any time for family friends or even just for yourself... an extreme example? Possible but not rare...

..also circumstance often drags people into crime.. not just the circumstance of where we are born or brought up, and with whom, or with whom we are pally as kids, but those circumstances too.. but circumstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. I suspect quite a few of the rioters and looters who end up in the nick, with have no previous, will end up as just such people.. circumstance of being removed from the benefits system and having not a bean to feed the family... losing a job and being denied welfare payments.. it does happen... circumstances, allied to desperation contribute to being dragged into a life of crime..

It is terrific to say they should continue to be honest citizens and most do try and many succeed.. Kate and I live prosperously thank God, and live very well tyvm. I have never been that desperate and would hate to think I ever shall be.. but until I am faced with that awful dilemma, I won't come over all holier than thou, and neither should anyone else..

[jamieknyc]

I can go along with that Jamie.. but its not enough is it?

Crime often pays better than a hum drum job earning minimum wage holding down 3 or 4 P/T jobs working all hours grafting all hours, spending too much tiem commuting very often between them and home with the appropriate ttravel to work costs..with no real prospects and hardly ever having any time for family friends or even just for yourself... an extreme example? Possible but not rare...

..also circumstance often drags people into crime.. not just the circumstance of where we are born or brought up, and with whom, or with whom we are pally as kids, but those circumstances too.. but circumstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. I suspect quite a few of the rioters and looters who end up in the nick, with have no previous, will end up as just such people.. circumstance of being removed from the benefits system and having not a bean to feed the family... losing a job and being denied welfare payments.. it does happen... circumstances, allied to desperation contribute to being dragged into a life of crime..

It is terrific to say they should continue to be honest citizens and most do try and many succeed.. Kate and I live prosperously thank God, and live very well tyvm. I have never been that desperate and would hate to think I ever shall be.. but until I am faced with that awful dilemma, I won't come over all holier than thou, and neither should anyone else..

I can't speak for the UK. In the US first offenders rarely get serious convictions except for felonies.

[Darkside2009]

Jamie

'I can't speak for the UK. In the US first offenders rarely get serious convictions except for felonies.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is usually the same in the UK, penalties for first offenders and lesser crimes are usually a fine, community service or probation. We no longer classify crimes as felonies and haven't for a good many years.

Crimes such as murder and rape, will on conviction attract a prison sentence, with a greater penalty if there were, aggravating circumstances.

When the death penalty was abolished in the UK people were told that the death penalty would be replaced by a life sentence. This has not been the case, murderers serve around eight to ten years on average before being released. It is the victim's families that serve the the life sentence of trauma, not knowing if they will suddenly meet the murderer of their loved one when they are out shopping or at a social event.

In the Bulger case, one of the murderers was rehoused in Cheshire which is a mere forty miles from Liverpool were the crime took place. I believe in your country citizens are given the right to know if a sex offender is rehoused in their midst. This despite your citizens having more ready access to guns. In the UK this information was not released for fear the murderers would be killed by vigilantes.

It was purely by chance one of the murderers was found to have downloaded and exchanged child pornography images on his computer and was thus returned to prison as being in violation of the terms of his release. The same individual had on a previous occasion been found in possession of cocaine, but was merely given a warning. Not one tenth of the resources have been expended on the victim's family as have been expended on these two murderers. The sentence they received was grossly inadequate, especially considering the torture they put that child through before they killed him.

Who cries for Jamie Bulger? Not many it seems, but too many wring their hands at the 'unfair' treatment meted out to his murderers. They had lawyers to defend them, and social workers and imminent judges to look after their interests. As to little Jamie, well his rights were taken from him before they had hardly begun, his right to life, loving family and the pursuit of happiness. His family have had to live with the nightmare of that day ever since.

[Long Duck Dong]

I can go along with that Jamie.. but its not enough is it?

Crime often pays better than a hum drum job earning minimum wage holding down 3 or 4 P/T jobs working all hours grafting all hours, spending too much tiem commuting very often between them and home with the appropriate ttravel to work costs..with no real prospects and hardly ever having any time for family friends or even just for yourself... an extreme example? Possible but not rare...

..also circumstance often drags people into crime.. not just the circumstance of where we are born or brought up, and with whom, or with whom we are pally as kids, but those circumstances too.. but circumstance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time..


there is one aspect of criminal life you left out.... some are natural born criminals, their normal behievour is against the law, but for them, its life as normal.... IE a lot of people that are violent, are violent cos its in their nature....

its why the prison and rehab system doesn't always work... lol think of it as religion trying to use prayer to make LGBT into god fearing hetero people....
but there is the constant push to rehab prisoners, get them to say the right things, have the * right attitude * at parole hearings .... and when they don't keep them locked up longer

the trouble right there is you are pretty much telling people to lie and put of a false image in exchange for freedom...... instead of the parole accepting that the person is telling the truth about their thoughts and feelings..... they have no remorse, no sympathy and they do not care...... but you are not allowed to be honest.... and sociopaths are not empathic people, they have no emotions, but they are expected to be emotional and sympathic towards their victims, when they feel nothing at all

one of the guys I did time with, openly stated that he was constantly being *coached * in what to say and what to do to get out of prison.... and his answer was I am a violent mofo, but a fraud and a liar I am not.....

yes, definitely there are people in prison that fucked up and when they get out, they will do their best to be law abiding citizens... but has often happens, they do time, they get out and they realise that in prison they are freer than a person on the outside.....

as you have posted, being tied to a job, the endless drag of traffic, bills, bills and more bills, the worry about making ends meet, family issues, arguments etc etc..... it wears most people down.... so prison in a sense is a holiday from the real world......

the trouble is prison is seen by many as a punishment, incarceration, removal of rights etc etc..... and thats cos they love their freedom, they can not handle the idea of lock down for 23 hours a day, 7 days a week...... many criminals can handle it.......

yes there are prisoners that can't, they break mentally and emotionally, and they are held up as proof of how harsh and cruel prison is... and that fuels the non custodial sentence argument and things like early prisoner release programs......which also works for many, but not all

there is no simple fix, no easy answer, cos there is a different answer for each person.... and the one size fits all rule is not working...... and that one size fits all approach is prison.....and for many people, its the wrong thing.... things like community service etc are a better option... even tho it doesn't always work

we do need to stop making excuses for why people offend and reoffend..... and let them tell us why they do it...... cos often the answer is " cos we can " but we like the abusive family, low / no income, drug and alcohol abuse etc reasons, as we can make victims out of the criminals and justify their actions
and that comes back to what darkside has said, the criminals get more help than the victims.....

as DD told me, her brother did time in the US, her and her brother are unemployed, yet being a ex con, he will have more chance of getting a job than her now, she has qualifications, he has the 50k tax credit for any employer that gives him a job......

[darkeyes]

I have never liked the idea that people are born bad.. even although I have seen little kids of two and younger apparently prove me wrong, I do not like the idea that people are going to come to no good for genetic or any other reason no matter what.. it may be a fact, it may not be, but people keep teling me that it is so.. but knowing that whatever our behaviour, our morality, honesty and our attitudes and beliefs, these are learned things, heavily influenced from many different directions.. some things within us are genetic and we have little control over them.. but criminality? I can't dismiss it entirely for I have little evidence one way or other, but it is possible.. pyscopaths and sociopaths exist, no argument from me on that score, suffering from a disorder which is likely to lead them into criminality.. but it doesn't every one of them.. people may have more or less of a predeliction to crime, but I prefer to believe that given the right start in life and being led a decent example, and given opportunities to make a decent life for themselves there are few, if any who cannot be kept on the straight and narrow and lead decent, productive and honest lives... this is a personal view, but one I hold, knowing that peeps will flame the idea that we arent born good or bad, law abiding or criminal, but learn it, whatever we may be, and something in our life influences us one way or other which road we go down.

I hold these beliefs because I have something few have.. an absolute and unshakable belief in the essential goodness of our kind, and a belief born not out of religion or any other hocus pocus..but of knowledge I have learned and observation of people around me.. I have a belief that in time, what badness we have within our species will in time reduce, become less, and at some stage, no doubt centuries even millenia in the future, will disappear.. it is a tenet of faith in humanity, not in God or in the words and deeds of any philosopher.. cloud cuckoo land? Maybe.. but no one will tell me that and get me to believe it...

I have always tried never to make excuses why people re-offend or even offend in the first place.. often there is mitigation but never excuses, although some would say these are one and the same thing.. they are not. What I argue and have always argued, what is a central plank of my belief is that there are reasons why people do things... becoming a criminal and people doing criminal acts all have reasons.

The problem is far too many don't believe that and consider the crime and the criminal something that will always be.. and is inevitable. They don't think that there are reasons, or if they do, they belive those reasons to be excuses and fail to pursue them accordingly.. there are reasons England burned, and thousands rioted... not excuses.. reasons.. Government dismisses that as nonsense and accepts no responsibility creating the conditions which brought those reasons into existence.. some will say I am still making excuses for criminality, but I'm not.. until we know why people act as they do, and move to correct those flaws in the fabric of society which create the reasons, we make no progress in arresting, not the criminal, but criminal behaviour...

[jamieknyc]

Jamie

'I can't speak for the UK. In the US first offenders rarely get serious convictions except for felonies.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is usually the same in the UK, penalties for first offenders and lesser crimes are usually a fine, community service or probation. We no longer classify crimes as felonies and haven't for a good many years.

Crimes such as murder and rape, will on conviction attract a prison sentence, with a greater penalty if there were, aggravating circumstances.

When the death penalty was abolished in the UK people were told that the death penalty would be replaced by a life sentence. This has not been the case, murderers serve around eight to ten years on average before being released. It is the victim's families that serve the the life sentence of trauma, not knowing if they will suddenly meet the murderer of their loved one when they are out shopping or at a social event.

In the Bulger case, one of the murderers was rehoused in Cheshire which is a mere forty miles from Liverpool were the crime took place. I believe in your country citizens are given the right to know if a sex offender is rehoused in their midst. This despite your citizens having more ready access to guns. In the UK this information was not released for fear the murderers would be killed by vigilantes.

It was purely by chance one of the murderers was found to have downloaded and exchanged child pornography images on his computer and was thus returned to prison as being in violation of the terms of his release. The same individual had on a previous occasion been found in possession of cocaine, but was merely given a warning. Not one tenth of the resources have been expended on the victim's family as have been expended on these two murderers. The sentence they received was grossly inadequate, especially considering the torture they put that child through before they killed him.

Who cries for Jamie Bulger? Not many it seems, but too many wring their hands at the 'unfair' treatment meted out to his murderers. They had lawyers to defend them, and social workers and imminent judges to look after their interests. As to little Jamie, well his rights were taken from him before they had hardly begun, his right to life, loving family and the pursuit of happiness. His family have had to live with the nightmare of that day ever since.

In the United States, jail sentences are usually imposed only for violent crimes or serious narcotics offenses. Theft rarely leads to jail time unless you're Bernie Madoff.

[Darkside2009]

Darkeyes

'...The problem is far too many don't believe that and consider the crime and the criminal something that will always be.. and is inevitable. They don't think that there are reasons, or if they do, they belive those reasons to be excuses and fail to pursue them accordingly.. there are reasons England burned, and thousands rioted... not excuses.. reasons.. Government dismisses that as nonsense and accepts no responsibility creating the conditions which brought those reasons into existence.. some will say I am still making excuses for criminality, but I'm not.. until we know why people act as they do, and move to correct those flaws in the fabric of society which create the reasons, we make no progress in arresting, not the criminal, but criminal behaviour...'
__________________________________________________ ______________-

I don't believe children are born evil, I believe our characters are formed by our formative years as a child. The Jesuits had a maxim, 'Give us the boy, we will give you the man'

Unfortunately some decide to take what they consider the easier choice. The bully in the school playground who steals another kid's lunch money or belongings, just because he or she is physically stronger than the victim and thinks they can get away with it.

The person in the pub or dancehall that thinks he is entitled to grope strangers just because he is feeling sexually aroused.

The burglar who steals other people's belongings and violates their home, because he thinks it is easier and more profitable than working to earn his living.

The rapist who thinks he should be able to have sex with whomsoever he wants, whenever he wants and the dissent of the victim is not important to him. The fact his victims are terrified during the ordeal only adds to his pleasure.

The illegal drug dealer who offers drugs to get his victims hooked so he has a ready market for his wares. He cares not that he might be destroying the life of a person or their family. He is only interested in the life-style his profits will gain him.

The pimp who traffics in prostitutes, only concerned with his profits and the life-style it will afford him.

The murderer, who takes everything his or her victim has or ever will have.

There have always been such people, and always will. It is the result of personal choices they have made. The fact that millions of others come from identical backgrounds, where hard-times is a constant spectre at the table, yet do not accept abusing their fellow human is an option to be considered, should convince you of that.

Just as you cannot force a smoker to give up their habit, they themselves are the only one that can do that, they themselves have to want to change their character and behaviour.

So all the wringing of hands and blaming Society for the actions of offenders, is, and will be, of no avail. Criminals have this in common, they do not care about their victims, whatever the crime, if they did, there would not be any victims or any crime.

As to the future, as we live on a Planet with finite resources, I can only see the problem being worse. As we find cures for many diseases that ail us, over-population will continue to exacerbate the problems we face. Our Great-Grandchildren face a grim future.

[darkeyes]

Human beings are much too complex for them just to decide to be bad without there being a reason... something made them decide to be so.. I agree that something is as likely to be in their formative years as at any other time.

No one's background, history and the circumstances of their lives are precisely indentical and within those we find the reasons why people, apparently so similar, become so different.. it may be a little thing such as a child, being much loved but believing themselves a less favoured sibling and harbouring familial resentment because of different ways we treat different children who are after all individuals and must be treated differently. No great thing or liable to turn a child into a criminal we may think but that perception of favouritism of another child over him or her can make the difference which at some stage may lead him or her to make bad decisions..

We cannot lay all the blame on society but we can lay a great deal upon it. As individuals we make the ultimate decision on where we are headed, and make those decisions based on what we find in the world as much as because of our sense of right and wrong... when a society creates hopelessness among close to 20% of its population we should not be surprised that at least some will decide to take the law into their own hands and begin to make their way in life contrary to the wishes and desires of most of us.. even most of their peers.. the unfairness of our country's society and vast disparity in wealth and opportunity create the conditions which breed the resentments among many who because of some reason, great or small in their personal history, they choose to move in a wrong direction... it is impossible to prevent this entirely at this stage in human evolution, but the political masters and elites which have wealth and power in this country and in others do so enjoy making things difficult for those less fortunate than themselves... it is in their interests to do so.. many, not all by any means, are greater criminals and responsible personally for much of the crime they themselves condemn the lesser ordinary criminal for.. many are silent but they know the truth and simply accept whatever goodies that brings them... none of this is to excuse the ordinary criminal, but there are and always shall be reasons...

All of us make honest bad decisions in our lives.. there are reasons why we do that.. and bad decisions to become a criminal or perform a wrong act also have reasons... we cannot eliminate all because of the complexity of the human mind, but there is much we can do even now to minimise it.. and as a society, accepting that we bear much of the responsibility for that crime knowing there is much we can do to eliminate the circumstances which create the conditions for crime is a positive start..

[Darkside2009]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;208068]Human beings are much too complex for them just to decide to be bad without there being a reason... something made them decide to be so.. I agree that something is as likely to be in their formative years as at any other time.

No one's background, history and the circumstances of their lives are precisely indentical and within those we find the reasons why people, apparently so similar, become so different.. it may be a little thing such as a child, being much loved but believing themselves a less favoured sibling and harbouring familial resentment because of different ways we treat different children who are after all individuals and must be treated differently. No great thing or liable to turn a child into a criminal we may think but that perception of favouritism of another child over him or her can make the difference which at some stage may lead him or her to make bad decisions..

We cannot lay all the blame on society but we can lay a great deal upon it. As individuals we make the ultimate decision on where we are headed, and make those decisions based on what we find in the world as much as because of our sense of right and wrong... when a society creates hopelessness among close to 20% of its population we should not be surprised that at least some will decide to take the law into their own hands and begin to make their way in life contrary to the wishes and desires of most of us.. even most of their peers.. the unfairness of our country's society and vast disparity in wealth and opportunity create the conditions which breed the resentments among many who because of some reason, great or small in their personal history, they choose to move in a wrong direction... it is impossible to prevent this entirely at this stage in human evolution, but the political masters and elites which have wealth and power in this country and in others do so enjoy making things difficult for those less fortunate than themselves... it is in their interests to do so.. many, not all by any means, are greater criminals and responsible personally for much of the crime they themselves condemn the lesser ordinary criminal for.. many are silent but they know the truth and simply accept whatever goodies that brings them... none of this is to excuse the ordinary criminal, but there are and always shall be reasons...

All of us make honest bad decisions in our lives.. there are reasons why we do that.. and bad decisions to become a criminal or perform a wrong act also have reasons... we cannot eliminate all because of the complexity of the human mind, but there is much we can do even now to minimise it.. and as a society, accepting that we bear much of the responsibility for that crime knowing there is much we can do to eliminate the circumstances which create the conditions for crime is a positive start..[/QUOTE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry! but I find the above to be utter nonsense, just one weary excuse after another. A bad decision, need not be a criminal one, there is a difference.

[jamieknyc]

Human beings are much too complex for them just to decide to be bad without there being a reason... something made them decide to be so.. I agree that something is as likely to be in their formative years as at any other time.

No one's background, history and the circumstances of their lives are precisely indentical and within those we find the reasons why people, apparently so similar, become so different.. it may be a little thing such as a child, being much loved but believing themselves a less favoured sibling and harbouring familial resentment because of different ways we treat different children who are after all individuals and must be treated differently. No great thing or liable to turn a child into a criminal we may think but that perception of favouritism of another child over him or her can make the difference which at some stage may lead him or her to make bad decisions..

We cannot lay all the blame on society but we can lay a great deal upon it. As individuals we make the ultimate decision on where we are headed, and make those decisions based on what we find in the world as much as because of our sense of right and wrong... when a society creates hopelessness among close to 20% of its population we should not be surprised that at least some will decide to take the law into their own hands and begin to make their way in life contrary to the wishes and desires of most of us.. even most of their peers.. the unfairness of our country's society and vast disparity in wealth and opportunity create the conditions which breed the resentments among many who because of some reason, great or small in their personal history, they choose to move in a wrong direction... it is impossible to prevent this entirely at this stage in human evolution, but the political masters and elites which have wealth and power in this country and in others do so enjoy making things difficult for those less fortunate than themselves... it is in their interests to do so.. many, not all by any means, are greater criminals and responsible personally for much of the crime they themselves condemn the lesser ordinary criminal for.. many are silent but they know the truth and simply accept whatever goodies that brings them... none of this is to excuse the ordinary criminal, but there are and always shall be reasons...

All of us make honest bad decisions in our lives.. there are reasons why we do that.. and bad decisions to become a criminal or perform a wrong act also have reasons... we cannot eliminate all because of the complexity of the human mind, but there is much we can do even now to minimise it.. and as a society, accepting that we bear much of the responsibility for that crime knowing there is much we can do to eliminate the circumstances which create the conditions for crime is a positive start..

You are looking at it from the point of view of white, middle-class ideas.

Rioters are usually not people from the criminal element, but rather neighborhood people who are set off by some incident (usually police brutality). They rarely have a political agenda and usually do mostly looting neighborhood stores.

Criminals do not turn to a life of crime because they have a sense of political rage. They are usually people who see crime as offering big rewards for those who are willing to take the risks and see people who work for a living as being suckers. Crime is really more of what you could call a non-traditional business than any kind of social revolt.

[darkeyes]

Sorry! but I find the above to be utter nonsense, just one weary excuse after another. A bad decision, need not be a criminal one, there is a difference.

Because you think that does not make it so, Dark... I prefer to think beyond the end of my nose...

[darkeyes]

You are looking at it from the point of view of white, middle-class ideas.

Rioters are usually not people from the criminal element, but rather neighborhood people who are set off by some incident (usually police brutality). They rarely have a political agenda and usually do mostly looting neighborhood stores.

Criminals do not turn to a life of crime because they have a sense of political rage. They are usually people who see crime as offering big rewards for those who are willing to take the risks and see people who work for a living as being suckers. Crime is really more of what you could call a non-traditional business than any kind of social revolt.

No Jamie.. not white and middle class.. and even if you were right about that.. that doesnt make me wrong..:)

[Darkside2009]

Because you think that does not make it so, Dark... I prefer to think beyond the end of my nose...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The corollary of that is, just because you think it is so, does not make it so, there is ample evidence to prove you wrong, but that wouldn't chime with your political beliefs, so you choose not to believe it. That is your choice, your prerogative.

Much easier to blame Society for someone being an axe-murderer, or a rapist, we should have recognised the signs, the first time he threw his dummy out of the pram. It lets us off the hook for personal responsibility for our choices in life. You can dress it up in whatever way you please, I'm still not buying it.:rolleyes:

[darkeyes]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The corollary of that is, just because you think it is so, does not make it so, there is ample evidence to prove you wrong, but that wouldn't chime with your political beliefs, so you choose not to believe it. That is your choice, your prerogative.

Much easier to blame Society for someone being an axe-murderer, or a rapist, we should have recognised the signs, the first time he threw his dummy out of the pram. It lets us off the hook for personal responsibility for our choices in life. You can dress it up in whatever way you please, I'm still not buying it.:rolleyes:

It does not chime with my beliefs, political or otherwise. Most of all it does not chime with my understanding of human thought and my humanitarianism.. nothing to do with my politics.. it is quite easy to blame society for society bears much of the responsibility for allowing the conditions in which crime thrives to continue. You may make whatever emotive arguments you wish, I prefer to try and get to the bottom of human thought and why we do things. Blaming an axe murderer is easy and justified.. he deserves blame and punishment, but it is not the whole story.. he has a story too and unless we learn that story and what turned him into that axe murderer we learn nothing.

Nothing lets us off the hook of personal responsibility.. people like you do not think that society bears any responsibiity for crime except for those within society who personally perpetrate and perpetuate it and therefore have no personal responsibility for crime... that is your evasion of personal responsibility for failing to bring government and society to book for its failures towards our people.. all of them, not just the criminal.. but all of society deserves criticism for failing in its responsibility to learn about and deal with the conditions in which crime proliferates and prospers.. we all bear personal responsibility for the state of our country.. for the state of the world.. crime and criminality are part of the state of our country and our world... deny your responsibility for it if you wish.. I refuse to deny mine..

[jamieknyc]

Humanitarianism is one thing. Understanding why a phenomenon occurs requires setting aside ideologies and dealing with the actual facts.

[darkeyes]

Humanitarianism is one thing. Understanding why a phenomenon occurs requires setting aside ideologies and dealing with the actual facts.

There is no ideology involved in digging deeper into the causes of crime and criminality than actual facts. Facts relatively speaking, can be found (or fabricated) relatively easily. What is difficult is ascertaining the causes of crime and to do that there is much more than just actual facts which have to be considered. Much of our civilisation was built and a vast part of our knowledge was learned without facts both phenomena in their own right...

[Long Duck Dong]

It does not chime with my beliefs, political or otherwise. Most of all it does not chime with my understanding of human thought and my humanitarianism.. nothing to do with my politics.. it is quite easy to blame society for society bears much of the responsibility for allowing the conditions in which crime thrives to continue. You may make whatever emotive arguments you wish, I prefer to try and get to the bottom of human thought and why we do things. Blaming an axe murderer is easy and justified.. he deserves blame and punishment, but it is not the whole story.. he has a story too and unless we learn that story and what turned him into that axe murderer we learn nothing.

Nothing lets us off the hook of personal responsibility.. people like you do not think that society bears any responsibiity for crime except for those within society who personally perpetrate and perpetuate it and therefore have no personal responsibility for crime... that is your evasion of personal responsibility for failing to bring government and society to book for its failures towards our people.. all of them, not just the criminal.. but all of society deserves criticism for failing in its responsibility to learn about and deal with the conditions in which crime proliferates and prospers.. we all bear personal responsibility for the state of our country.. for the state of the world.. crime and criminality are part of the state of our country and our world... deny your responsibility for it if you wish.. I refuse to deny mine..

society created crime by creating legal laws as its legal law that defines a action as a criminal act..... hence stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry family is still a criminal act, even tho its a act of humane desperation...

it is why my military service was deemed acceptable, cos it was in defense of my country, yet the defense of my own family and home, in the same manner, ended up with me being imprisoned, yet while my actions were legal in the army, there are many that will rubbish me for my actions, and praise me for my illegal actions........

in both cases, I took human lives.

people will argue the merits of my actions based around the circumstances and their own personal opinions, but it is the law that defined my actions as right and wrong.

it is societies actions and interactions, however that can influence my attitude towards mankind .. and make the difference between me being a law abiding citizen and a person that reacts in a manner that is deemed to be of a criminal nature....

most of the people that judge me, have never walked in my shoes, so their opinion of me is based around their own perceptions, opinions and understanding of things that they see, not what actually happened and why.....

that is why things like laws protecting the LGBT and giving them rights, are seen by us as good and right, and others as bad and wrong..... but the laws are neutral..... all they do, is give us rights and recognize who we are as people and human beings, and justify our actions legally.....

even tho our actions are for the most part legal, it has not changed the fact that people disagree, so we make them the villains and pass laws to make their actions and forms of expression, illegal... in effect making them criminals.....

yet the whole time, we are constantly arguing for the rights of freedom of expression......

we are part of society, like it or not.....and so in part we are responsible for the state of the world around us.... or as I often say, we have created it, we need to accept responsible for it and stop blaming everybody else

[Darkside2009]

Darkeyes:-

'...that is your evasion of personal responsibility for failing to bring government and society to book for its failures towards our people.. all of them, not just the criminal.. but all of society deserves criticism for failing in its responsibility to learn about and deal with the conditions in which crime proliferates and prospers.. we all bear personal responsibility for the state of our country.. for the state of the world.. crime and criminality are part of the state of our country and our world... deny your responsibility for it if you wish.. I refuse to deny mine..
__________________________________________________ ______________

Well, considering that the Labour Party doesn't and didn't organise or stand for election here in Northern Ireland, means I was not given the opportunity to vote for it or its policies, despite it forming the Government of my country. Yet I was expected to obey and comply with the laws it passed whilst in Government. Did they want to hear my voice? No. Did they want me to continue paying my taxes? Most assuredly they did.

Crime existed before we had the Welfare State in this country and crime continued unabated afterwards. Criminals even continued their activities during the war years, when the rest of the country was pulling together to defeat Hitler.

Crime has continued no matter what Government has been in power, whether of the Left or the Right. Crime has continued during the Depression and during times of affluence, so blaming it on Society as an excuse will not hold water.

As to my personal responsibility, I lead my life by example. Though raised in poverty, I do not steal or commit other crimes against my fellow man. I am not alone in this, millions of others were raised in similar circumstances and they are not criminals either. What I have, I have worked for. I have known times of unemployment, poor health, and troubles, just as countless others have, this has not led me into crime, any more than it has for those countless others. My word is my bond.

Would I like to win the lottery and be a millionaire? Most assuredly, but I am not going to hold my breath until that happens. I will continue to enjoy my life and my friends and family, my hobbies and interests. My needs are simple and my wants are few. I take personal responsibility for my actions and expect no less of anyone else.

Unlike gun ownership or driving a car, bringing a child into this World does not require a licence. There are, and always have been, feckless parents who raise their children poorly. In extreme cases such children are taken into care, nominally for their own protection. As we have found to our cost, even in those supposedly safe homes, they were not immune from the criminal acts of paedophiles who preyed upon them.

So unless and until Society introduces some draconian measure to limit the natural human right to have children there will always be those less fortunate than ourselves. Such children, on reaching adulthood can decide for themselves how they wish to lead their lives, either within the law, or in a life of crime. They exercise their personal responsibility. Even children whose parents fail them, can imbibe notions of right and wrong from those around them, from their peers, from other adults and teachers.

Those that riot set a poor example for our children to follow, which is but one reason why their punishment should be more severe.

There are undoubtedly those criminals, whose first encounter in the courts or prisons will convince them to stay within the law, in the future. There are other 'career criminals' who regard being caught and imprisonment as just one of the hazards of their chosen path. Should I feel sorry for them? No. Do I feel sorry for them? Again no, they exercised their personal choice, they live with the consequences.

[darkeyes]

No comment me lufflies.. just for info...:)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-backs-away-from-plan-to-close-social-media-sites-during-riots-2344097.html

[love1234]

Love 1234, Have you ever thought of selling your brain, one owner, never been used, it should be worth a lot of money?

Have you ever read the contract the fake queens signed. Well I have.

She is a criminal!!!!!!!

All your leaders are criminals and it is the people in the UK that need to get a brain, courage and soul.

How long does the world have to wait till males in the UK grow brains and balls?

I do believe the answer is it will never happen as they are neutered at birth.

Its a total shame that males in the UK have been cowards and opposing God so long. They have let the banker, gangsters, criminal royals run wild as all humans on earth suffer from the madness coming from these London criminal gangs.

Is there one man left in London or even two men left in the UK with the balls to set things right? I think there is not even two males left in the UK with the brains and balls that will act to set things straight for the hundreds of years that the rest of world has had to suffer because of all the cowards that let these criminals run wild...

I hope I'm wrong and the people get their pitch forks and storm the gates.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

[love1234]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree, no one in the UK needs to steal bottled water. Bottled water is comparatively cheap and if they can't afford that, they can get it straight from the tap, even cheaper.

They broke the law, they got caught, they paid the penalty. If we all just took what didn't belong to us, there would be no need for any of us to work. The resulting Society however would be horrendous to live in, much worse than it is now, not one person would be safe in it.

Welfare has to be pitched at such a level to give an incentive to work, it is supposed to be a safety net for those in genuine need, not an alternative to work. Again if we could obtain more sitting at home on benefits there would be no point in going out to work, but then there would be no one to tax to raise the money to pay those benefits.

You live in a Capitalist Society, business is geared to maximising profit and minimising cost thus maximising the return to those people that invest in them.

It may seem unfair that jobs are exported to places like China or India but remember their workers are paid less, much less, so profits for the company are greater. Remember all those Union fees and Pension contributions are invested in companies, they don't sit in a vault waiting for you to reach pension age.

What then is the answer? Back in Harold Wilson's time as Prime Minister they tried to persuade people to buy British goods were possible. It didn't work, businesses and people compared quality and bought as cheaply as they could.

We could retreat behind tariff barriers and make foreign goods as expensive to import and buy as their domestically produced equivalent, but that way leads to lack of innovation and stagnation.

Remember back to those pictures of the Japanese earthquake, one picture in particular sticks in mind. A road with a yawning chasm stretching right up the middle for as far as the eye could see. The Japanese workers had that road filled in, resurfaced, the relevant traffic lines painted on it and up and running in six days. Compare that to the weeks of cones and traffic disruption we would endure here in the UK.

You will have no doubt read of the influx of workers from Poland and Romania snapping up the available jobs here, they work extremely hard and accrue the benefits. They don't sit around wringing their hands thinking the World owes them a living, they just get on with it, in just the same way as waves of immigrants before them did.

So no, I don't feel sorry for your friend, or the girl who stole the bottled water, or those like them that stole what didn't belong to them. I feel sorry for those small business owners who had their businesses wrecked and destroyed. I feel sorry for those people who no longer have a job to go to because some moron burned down their place of work. I feel sorry for those people, both old and young, trapped and terrified in their own homes by a rampaging mob, with no sign of the police to protect them. I feel sorry for the wasted millions it has cost and will cost to clear-up the mess, that is millions less that could have been spent on housing, jobs, hospitals, schools etc. I feel sorry for the kid who was beaten up and had his bike and few belongings stolen from him by callous people who pretended to care for his welfare.

In one subsequent raid the police raided a flat and found £36,000 worth of stolen designer goods, I don't feel sorry for him either. We are not talking about people who stole food because they were starving, they stole because they could and there was not enough police around to stop them.

A few brave souls tried their best to protect their communities, they paid with their lives. It is they I honour and respect, not some rampaging mob.

Would events have been different if more guns were freely available to our citizens, as some have suggested? Personally, I wouldn't have thought so, if guns were that freely available, rioters would have access to them too, In which case the death toll might have been even higher.

Having guns in the house can make one a target for those that might wish to steal them, there have been a number of cases of this type in my country. They weren't given advance notice of an impending raid, just a gun stuck in their face when they answered the door-bell.

Does all this make me a reactionary? In the eyes of some, no doubt it does. As I said before I was raised in poverty by a gentle, loving, Christian woman, who taught me right from wrong. She didn't have much in her life in the way of Wordly goods, but she was blessed with a loving and determined spirit.

What she did have, she shared freely. She treated people with kindness,
dignity and respect and in return she was loved by all who knew her. What she didn't have, she made do without. Her wants and her needs were simple and she lived all the happier for it. If there is any good in me, it comes from her. I loved her dearly and I still grieve her loss. I doubt I shall meet her equal, in this World or the next, but I shall carry the moral compass her simple love provided, engrained in my heart, to my own grave.

"a Capitalist Society" Well that is against the Laws of God that your so call (criminal) queen agreed to at her coronation. Your evil criminal queen AGREED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF GOD!! It's on youtube you can watch her lie as did most all her criminally insane ancestors.

Corporations that make money under the agreement you and the queen agreed to are to give back the profits to the people every seven years. The money making corporations then would go to the workers and any extra profits go to the people of the UK.

This is the contract that the queen agree to with God and the people of the UK at her coronation.

Stealing is wrong but your evil, criminal government lets the real criminals run wild all over this earth. They are given titles and are seen as good people by the blind.

The real stealing is being done by the fake queens government and the criminal corporations. I do not see them going to prison.

Taking a little water well that it not much of a crime if its a crime at all?

[love1234]

Darkeyes:-

'...that is your evasion of personal responsibility for failing to bring government and society to book for its failures towards our people.. all of them, not just the criminal.. but all of society deserves criticism for failing in its responsibility to learn about and deal with the conditions in which crime proliferates and prospers.. we all bear personal responsibility for the state of our country.. for the state of the world.. crime and criminality are part of the state of our country and our world... deny your responsibility for it if you wish.. I refuse to deny mine..
__________________________________________________ ______________

Well, considering that the Labour Party doesn't and didn't organise or stand for election here in Northern Ireland, means I was not given the opportunity to vote for it or its policies, despite it forming the Government of my country. Yet I was expected to obey and comply with the laws it passed whilst in Government. Did they want to hear my voice? No. Did they want me to continue paying my taxes? Most assuredly they did.

Crime existed before we had the Welfare State in this country and crime continued unabated afterwards. Criminals even continued their activities during the war years, when the rest of the country was pulling together to defeat Hitler.

Crime has continued no matter what Government has been in power, whether of the Left or the Right. Crime has continued during the Depression and during times of affluence, so blaming it on Society as an excuse will not hold water.

As to my personal responsibility, I lead my life by example. Though raised in poverty, I do not steal or commit other crimes against my fellow man. I am not alone in this, millions of others were raised in similar circumstances and they are not criminals either. What I have, I have worked for. I have known times of unemployment, poor health, and troubles, just as countless others have, this has not led me into crime, any more than it has for those countless others. My word is my bond.

Would I like to win the lottery and be a millionaire? Most assuredly, but I am not going to hold my breath until that happens. I will continue to enjoy my life and my friends and family, my hobbies and interests. My needs are simple and my wants are few. I take personal responsibility for my actions and expect no less of anyone else.

Unlike gun ownership or driving a car, bringing a child into this World does not require a licence. There are, and always have been, feckless parents who raise their children poorly. In extreme cases such children are taken into care, nominally for their own protection. As we have found to our cost, even in those supposedly safe homes, they were not immune from the criminal acts of paedophiles who preyed upon them.

So unless and until Society introduces some draconian measure to limit the natural human right to have children there will always be those less fortunate than ourselves. Such children, on reaching adulthood can decide for themselves how they wish to lead their lives, either within the law, or in a life of crime. They exercise their personal responsibility. Even children whose parents fail them, can imbibe notions of right and wrong from those around them, from their peers, from other adults and teachers.

Those that riot set a poor example for our children to follow, which is but one reason why their punishment should be more severe.

There are undoubtedly those criminals, whose first encounter in the courts or prisons will convince them to stay within the law, in the future. There are other 'career criminals' who regard being caught and imprisonment as just one of the hazards of their chosen path. Should I feel sorry for them? No. Do I feel sorry for them? Again no, they exercised their personal choice, they live with the consequences.

Gun ownership here does not require a permission slip (license) from the government. Its a God Given Right to protect yourself and your family.

What kind of society do you live in where one needs to get a permission slip to exercise your God given rights?

Revolting against your criminal government :-) well everyone that does so should be considered a hero and given lands plus offices if they want them.

[love1234]

IN the instance of the rioters, I don't think it falls under what we would call normal circumstances. These are not your average criminal. Rather, they are very much what we saw in Lord of the Flies. What happens when the fear of recrimination is low? Bad behavior.

Spank their asses, make them do community service (preferably service that benefits the store owners), and send them on their way. Once normalcy is restored, these folks will go back to being fairly normal and law abiding citizens.

When there is nothing to force us to obey the law, most will not. It is sad, but true. Civilization is not our natural state of being. It is forced upon us by our parents and by society because it is the only way civilization continues apace. We all agree, by social contract, that this is for our own benefit. But when that social contract is not in force, many people will revert as the opportunity arises to do so.

Studies will be done on this affair as the years go on. I look forward to their findings.

Pasa Please Someone buy them some guns and tell them to get the job done right. Lets get rid of these career mass murdering criminals in the U.K.

The whole world will applaud them!!

Please Burn London to the ground, hang the scum and make the world a safe place to live!!

Please just do it!!

[sammie19]

Dont u just love a weirdo?

[Darkside2009]

The above rant is as good an example as you are likely to find, why we in the UK restrict those who may have guns. If you put tools, any tools, in the hands of idiots they invariably end up hurting themselves or others.

As to his views, his little vest must have come undone at the back for his hands to reach the keyboard.

Care in the community is obviously not working for him.

[mariersa]

Possibly, Drew will remove that idiot and his posts. Jesus how stupid can one be??:rolleyes:

[Darkside2009]

Possibly, Drew will remove that idiot and his posts. Jesus how stupid can one be??:rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know perhaps he views it as a career opportunity, a niche in the market that he might fill.

By his own logic, he has a God given right to go to and from his place of work, yet his State and Country require him to have a driving license if he wishes to drive there and back. :rolleyes:

[love1234]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know perhaps he views it as a career opportunity, a niche in the market that he might fill.

By his own logic, he has a God given right to go to and from his place of work, yet his State and Country require him to have a driving license if he wishes to drive there and back. :rolleyes:

I drove for decades with out a permission slip. My countries rules are near as bad as your countries rules but our leader does not get up in front of God and the world and lie with their hand on the Holy Bible and say they are going to do their best to keep the Laws of God.

When you leader does this and then goes against Gods Laws well then contract is broken and they are no longer the ruler. They should have been executed for treason against God and His people. Your people have not been doing their job of keeping their rulers in line.

In any true court of Law all the fake rules your evil leaders have signed that oppose the contract with God and His people are null and void.

Trouble is as the judges are paid by the fake government to keep the crimes hidden. So the crimes against God and His people go on and on and get worse and worse. They now have you unarmed and watch your every move. They had to take your arms because some day you might wake up and see all the crime that they have done to you and the world.

You have not had honest government in many, many centuries all the fake rules are null and void as your kings and queens have all lied to God and are criminals.

I understand you and near all your people do not get this. Your kings and queens near everyone of them (or all) have been criminal traitors against the people of the UK and God for at least the last 500 years. So all their fake rules are null and void in any honest court of Law.

[love1234]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know perhaps he views it as a career opportunity, a niche in the market that he might fill.

By his own logic, he has a God given right to go to and from his place of work, yet his State and Country require him to have a driving license if he wishes to drive there and back. :rolleyes:]

I do as all humans do have a God given right to travel in my country.

I have not followed the rules of man most my life. At times yes to stay out of troube with their criminal enterprises.

[love1234]

Possibly, Drew will remove that idiot and his posts. Jesus how stupid can one be??:rolleyes:

The Truth is not stupid. The believers of lies are the stupid ones.

[love1234]

Dont u just love a weirdo?

The Truth is very weird to those that believe lies!!!!

[love1234]

I can't speak for the UK. In the US first offenders rarely get serious convictions except for felonies.

Everything is now a felony in the u.s.

[Long Duck Dong]

]

I do as all humans do have a God given right to travel in my country.

I have not followed the rules of man most my life. At times yes to stay out of troube with their criminal enterprises.

god instructs his followers to live by the laws of the land in which they live.... and there is nothing in the bible about your right to drive a car without or without a license

so your god give right, is not given by god now is it..... so who is really the criminal ???

[darkeyes]

god instructs his followers to live by the laws of the land in which they live.... and there is nothing in the bible about your right to drive a car without or without a license

so your god give right, is not given by god now is it..... so who is really the criminal ???

Just occasionally Duckie.. have thought u just a lil bonkers.. know lotsa peeps here have thought me moren a lil bonkers... must b the Scottish in us babes huh? But sum peeps make even u an me seem class A certifiable sensible and very boringly normal...;) Poor ole Love...

[jamieknyc]

]

I do as all humans do have a God given right to travel in my country.

I have not followed the rules of man most my life. At times yes to stay out of troube with their criminal enterprises.

God didn't give you that right, but the Constitution did.

[darkeyes]

God didn't give you that right, but the Constitution did.

Ther r those who wud say that the constitution was God inspired and God's will... s'ok tho Jamie.. I think its bollox an all..:bigrin:

.. but it doesnt ordinary folk the right to roam ne wer they like.. ;)

[love1234]

god instructs his followers to live by the laws of the land in which they live.... and there is nothing in the bible about your right to drive a car without or without a license

so your god give right, is not given by god now is it..... so who is really the criminal ???

Not really. God is the Truth and The Law. God has forbidden man kind from making up laws.
Its in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is about Gods Law and following them.

Jesus was Gods Law in action. God has forbidden man kind from making up laws.
Its in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy is about Gods Law and following them. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you. God Word is the Law.
One is Ordered to follow the COMMAND-ments of God along with His LAWS; Statutes; Judgements; Economic Policy; Agricultural Policy and Diet. You or your country are not allowed to make up laws.

The punishment for making up laws (man made rules) is death. Again read Deuteronomy. Left and right bloodsucking (politics) is forbidden by God in the Bible. Its in the Torah. That's the first 5 books of the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Left and right poli-ticks is all so a form of idol worship again the death sentence is the penalty for idol worship.

Making people pay to get a license to travel is theft by the barrel of a gun in this fascist criminal state, again a crime under Gods Laws. YOU shall NOT steal.

[love1234]

God didn't give you that right, but the Constitution did.

The CON gives me nothing. The CON is a criminal paper given to this country by the evil elites.

The CON has got the people of this country into the mess its in today.

[DuckiesDarling]

Pssst.. Love, you do realize that the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament which recorded the birth of Jesus and the sacrifice so that those who believeth in him shall have everlasting life.

[Long Duck Dong]

take the bible out of context, much ???

jesus walked the earth, as quided by god, and when he ascended to heaven, it was to show people that they were no longer covered by the old testament laws, they were answerable directly to god..

the understanding being that mankind was corrupt, and expecting mankind to guide mankind in the ways of god, was not working as often they led mankind away from god, so jesus became the guiding light.....

hence there is no law of god now, only personal choice and responsibility for ones own actions and deeds... and each person will be judged according to the truth in their heart, not how many times they read the bible and use the passages for their own purposes....

[jamieknyc]

Not really. God is the Truth and The Law. God has forbidden man kind from making up laws.
Its in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is about Gods Law and following them.

Jesus was Gods Law in action. God has forbidden man kind from making up laws.
Its in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy is about Gods Law and following them. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you. God Word is the Law.
One is Ordered to follow the COMMAND-ments of God along with His LAWS; Statutes; Judgements; Economic Policy; Agricultural Policy and Diet. You or your country are not allowed to make up laws.

The punishment for making up laws (man made rules) is death. Again read Deuteronomy. Left and right bloodsucking (politics) is forbidden by God in the Bible. Its in the Torah. That's the first 5 books of the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Left and right poli-ticks is all so a form of idol worship again the death sentence is the penalty for idol worship.

Making people pay to get a license to travel is theft by the barrel of a gun in this fascist criminal state, again a crime under Gods Laws. YOU shall NOT steal.

You would be wise to leave the interpretation of God's Torah to those to whom He gave it.

[love1234]

Pssst.. Love, you do realize that the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament which recorded the birth of Jesus and the sacrifice so that those who believeth in him shall have everlasting life.

Wrong again. Is this a habit of yours? Do you like following blind guides and believing lies?

"Jesus came to abolish the priesthood except for himself alone as the sole representative of the priesthood, being both High-Priest and King, after the order of Melchizedek.
He told his followers including the apostles and it is written in the Gospel of Matthew, that they must not be priests (rabbi) and must not be called father:-" J.A Hill

23:8 But be not ye called priest (etc.): for One is your Teacher, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

Jesus told his TRUE followers, and it is written, again in Matthew, that they must NOT go to church and must NOT pray in church or in public, as the hypocrites DO.

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt NOT be as the hypocrites [ARE]: for they love to pray standing in the churches and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (They wanted to be seen by men and they have been).
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and WHEN THOU HAST SHUT THY DOOR, pray to thy Father in private (telepathically); and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Because He will answer you because you obeyed His instructions about how to do it, and when He does you will be so amazed that everyone will notice the change in you).

The parts of The Old Covenant that relate to the priesthood, churches and the animal sacrifices, for redemption from sin, are now OBSOLETE.

Matthew: 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least COMMANDments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.

God Law is still to be obeyed and anyone that say differently is a liar.

"Before you are tempted to quote the Gospel of John chapter 8 and The Adulterous Woman story, for an excuse, I must point out that this story did not appear in the original New Testament and was added a long time later by powerful people who wanted to get away with committing adultery.
If it had happened then it could not have been as it is written because Jesus came to uphold The Law not to break it, as he stated clearly. In this story Jesus is reported to have said, "Go and sin no more" not "everybody go out and do it", as has happened precisely because of The Adulterous Woman story."

The millions of mischievous people who misquote the letters of Paul and say that The Law itself was abolished, and that everyone can therefore break The Law with impunity, just as long as they say the words "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God", will burn, exactly as God says, for their crimes of misleading people and calling Jesus a liar, along with the millions who were misled from The Way, by them, because they chose to believe not the Truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). Jesus said, "He that is not with (and fighting for) me, is (automatically) AGAINST me."J.A.Hill

Jesus said, "I am The Way, the Truth and the Life" and "no man comes to the Father except by me." (The Way) is Gods Law. Jesus was Gods Law in action. The Covenant is called "The Way" in The Torah (Deuteronomy chapter 9 verses 12, 16 and 11:28 and 13:5 and 31:29) and Jesus was saying that he was a living demonstration of it (The Way) in action, demonstrating how YOU have to be if YOU want to survive and go home to your Father in Heaven. The Covenant is Gods Law.

Jesus in John
13:34 A new COMMANDment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
13:35 By THIS shall all [men] KNOW that ye are my disciples, IF ye have love one to another.
14:15 If ye love me, KEEP my COMMANDments.
14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
14:17 [Even] the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Christ said that he would come to you, NOT give authority to a human substitute which is what the word vicar means. Again no priest, rabbis you and the Holy Spirit.

The Second New COMMANDMENT

Matthew
7:1 Judge NOT, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Jesus was telling people not to judge their fellow man because that is God's job and He has given His Judgements by which men are to be judged and those judgements are written in the Song of Moses in the Torah, to which Jesus has told YOU to refer.
If we put these four Commandments together and a person loves and serves only God and His Laws and truly loves his neighbour as much as he loves himself and in the manner that Jesus did (and he gave his life for you) how could you possibly wrong anyone, whom you love as much as you love yourself and are willing to give your life for?
You cannot and therefore you will automatically not break The Law and not suffer as Paul said, any of the curses or penalty clauses. Jesus said, "Whatsoever you do to ANY man, you do it to me."

[love1234]

take the bible out of context, much ???

jesus walked the earth, as quided by god, and when he ascended to heaven, it was to show people that they were no longer covered by the old testament laws, they were answerable directly to god..

the understanding being that mankind was corrupt, and expecting mankind to guide mankind in the ways of god, was not working as often they led mankind away from god, so jesus became the guiding light.....

hence there is no law of god now, only personal choice and responsibility for ones own actions and deeds... and each person will be judged according to the truth in their heart, not how many times they read the bible and use the passages for their own purposes....
You have been tricked. Satan is good at tricking people. I have posted the Truth you can read it if you want?

[love1234]

You would be wise to leave the interpretation of God's Torah to those to whom He gave it.

The Torah was given to all mankind. Sure us Hebrews were the first ones to get it but it is for all people on this earth.

Anyone can go on line and find Gods COMMANDMENTS; LAWS; Statutes; Judgements; Economic Policy; Agricultural Policy and Diet. Its not rocket science.

[Long Duck Dong]

You have been tricked. Satan is good at tricking people. I have posted the Truth you can read it if you want?

no thanks, the truth is not found in a book, but in the hearts of those that have their eyes turned to the lord......

its the false prophets that will proclaim great wisdom and quote the bible as the source of their knowledge, yet their hearts will lack any knowledge of the understanding of gods ways in the lives of mankind....

and to think that I am a ex christian....lol....